Lindsay Clancy Debate: Guilty or Not Guilty, Lawyers REACT w/ Andrew Branca, Ashleigh Merchant, Richie McGinniss, Matt Miller

0:00Welcome to Tim Castile, RL. We are currently waiting the final verdict. I don't think we're going to verdict, but as of the pre-record we're doing this on a Friday, we are minutes away from the judge in the Lindsey Clancy case coming out and telling us what's going to happen. Now the judge did say he was going to declare a mistrial, but the defense asked for an emergency one hour appeal, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act, I guess insinuating that the jurors discriminating against Lindsey Clancy for being paralyzed, which obviously is a long shot. But this defense is really going for it. So it's looking like it's going to be a mistrial, but we will see. So it's going to happen in real time right now. We've got it pulled up. We got a bunch of talk about we got a full packed house joining us, the return of a legend, Richie McGuinness. Thanks for having me, Tim. Who are you? Richie McGuinness, I was actually a witness

1:02in a different murder trial, Cal Rittenhouse, and I work with Matt over at Blitter Brawl and on the author of Riot Diet, in which I cover a lot of that situation over there in Kenosha, and I'm happy to be here. Right on. It's good to have you both back. Richie's been a minute, and we got a couple of lawyers joining us. Talk about what's going on. Hey, I'm Ashley Marchin. I'm a criminal defense attorney out of Atlanta, Georgia, and I'm also the host of the MK True Crime podcast. Andra Branca, also a criminal defense attorney over at LawSelfDefense.com, do a lot of political commentaries, well at the Branca show on XN YouTube. And the boys. So, hey, Carter, I'm hanging out here with Carter. Do you have a camera? His camera's off. No, what? It's cocked a little bit. I'm going to go fix that in a second. You can cock. Yeah, me and Anna. We just started the show. You're a true Carter said it. Sure. I'm just pointing it out. So we're hanging out. The big news of the day, of course, everybody is waiting with baited breath on the outcome of this Lindsey Clancy jury. The last we heard there's one guy who is like,

2:03she's he's not budging. So they can't get in an MS verdict. Now, the defense said, can we can we pull the jury and see what they're hung up on? Because there's a potential reality. He might agree. She's not guilty on most of the charges, maybe some others. But it doesn't seem like that's going to happen. We don't know for sure. But that's why we brought these lawyers in so we can talk about what's going on. And we actually did a show a minute ago about more of the nuances and court and all this up. But as a person to the news, what do you think we're going to see as of the latest development? Well, he's I think he's trying. I think Kevin Reddington's trying desperately to find some judge who's willing to stay this case and let him get this jury on the record as to what they're doing for first degree. So there's multiple different charges. There's first degree, which is the one that actually carries the most penalty carries life without parole. Then there's second degree. And I think what Kevin Reddington wants is he wants a verdict of not guilty on those. Because if he gets that and then he gets a hung jury on the other charges, all they can go back to trial on are the other charges. So in a perfect world for him, if he had to try the case again,

3:03he'd only have to do it on a man's letter. Let's we got some lawyers here with the opinions on how the law works. But let's let's ask the voice. Well, you guys think you guys are unrelated to law because guilty or not guilty. I'd say not guilty because she threw herself out of window and paralyze herself from the neck down. Like that's her way. It's the way. You wouldn't stay on my jury. It's the waist down. If she had my jury, it's not where it's it's the it's the way. It's the way. It's the way. It's the way. It's all those the neck down. If she hadn't tried to kill herself. If she just killed three kids and was sitting there rocking in the corner, put her in center away. Yeah, but what if what if what if she was trying to jump out the window to make it look like it was a suicide attempt and she didn't actually expect to break her back like shooting herself in the foot to when she jumped out. How did she jump out? Did she like land on her butt? It's disputed. That is highly disputed. You're about to get into some Patrick Clancy conspiracy theories with that. That is a big dispute. Really? People think that he pushed her out. Yeah. And that's why she landed the way she did because apparently how she landed, they're saying couldn't have happened if she actually jumped out the window. Maybe she's like a gainer. So I was about to say that is some major Patrick Clancy conspiracy conspiracy. Like Jonathan. She landed. I mean, there are people

4:07on TikTok that like mapped out where her butt hit. Oh, I love it. I wish it pulled it up. Oh my God. Seriously, if you looked up how she landed, you're going to find a ton of Patrick Clancy. I just pulled up threads. I'm not going to I'm not going to first post all of this stuff. Patrick did this. They were too lazy to actually investigate like they should have. He did some shady stuff on his trip that night. A phone handoff. I am a little upset about the investigation. And I do I do hear that. I mean, the jury wants some answers. And that's why fueled these conspiracies. They didn't do any DNA testing. They didn't do anything. They're three dead kids. Like do your job. I have kids. I think guilty. Just lock her up throw away the key electric chair. What just because you hate it. We're big fans of the Ubley and not a lot of it up. I mean, look, and I was like having testified in the written house trial. I saw how little the facts mattered for many people out there. And you're seeing something similar with what's going on in TikTok here. But I mean, I just can't have any other opinion other than that. I think most people can't get past that. That's the past. What? Past the fact that she killed her three kids. I mean, it's other than

5:10the conspiracy theories, that's not really in dispute. But just legally, I think if the jury follows the law, they're going to have to find her not guilty. What about her like googling all of the different stuff beforehand. And that implying some degree of premeditation doesn't imply that she's not as insane as she definitely. I mean, I think there's a degree of premeditation because she did plan these out. It's whether or not she planned them out while she was in psychosis or she planned them out because she wanted them dead. So I'll tell you for me, for me, and a lot of jurors, they want a reason why did someone do something? Are you a thug? Are you trying to kill someone? Are you a violent person? Are you a bad person? Do you want your spouse dead? Do you want your kids dead? Because you hate your kids? She loved her kids and the testimony was she loved her kids. So for me, that was really lacking. And so it made it much more credible that she had this mental illness because why else is she going to kill her kids? I mean, even her mother-in-law testified that she loved her kids and wasn't getting them. Okay, but so then why isn't the thug on the street who stabs a woman to death? Why isn't he crazy? Why isn't that psychosis? Right, because he actually has a violent tendency. And so in cases like that, if he's violent and he's doing this, you know,

6:15repeatedly, you're going to have testimony that he's fine. Well, hold on, what was that? You want me to take this sack of silver and beet, richy to death of it? Yeah, I'm crazy. Richy can over here. I'm ready. That's my time. And they'd be like Tim Poole's never done anything like this before. It's completely out of character. And I'd be like, you saw it on the show. I said, I heard a voice told me to beat him with this little case of silver coins. I like to see you try. But you're not doing it because you don't want him dead. I don't want Richy dead. No, I didn't joke. So the only reason that she would have her instead of dead is because she's crazy. Well, it would bring courage back with you. She actually wanted them dead. That's why she, like you argument with Tim is that he didn't do it because he didn't really want to, but she did it. Oh, wait, wait, wait, no, no, stop. I don't want to hurt Richy. Don't make me because he's not crazy. He's not crazy. And he doesn't want him dead. Oh, wait, crazy. You might kill him. There is a small elf standing on your shoulder. And I have to destroy it. We're all the kids in the room with her when she was strangling them one by one. She took them one at a time with a base. That kind of indicates like after the first one, that's the worst fact in my opinion. The fact that it was like 13 minutes or something,

7:18that's the worst fact. That's where I would have a hard time. But with that one fact. The husband is on her side. Yeah. How? The husband testified for her. So, husband, her ex-mother-in-law testified, I mean, these are people that should hate her. She killed their grandkids. She killed his kids. They testified that she was a loving mother. She had no reason she would want her kids dead, loved them, and that she was seriously suffering and had history, history, mental illness. So for me, for me, the fact that she didn't want her kids dead and loved her kids and had mental illness makes it a lot more believable. Oh my God. The fact that she wanted to kill herself and she cared so much about how her children were raised. No one could raise her kids like she could. She didn't want them left behind. Right. And if she was going to be dead, she wanted those kids in heaven with her. That was her motivation. And I figured it out. I figured it out. Patrick didn't do it. Patrick didn't. They did it together. Yeah, they both were like, let's start that conspiracy theory. Oh my God. Well, that conspiracy will never fly because all of these women want to defend Lindsey.

8:19Have you seen the memes they've posted? There's like a poster and it's like justice for the kids and Lindsey. You got to pull something up. Look at the Bratz doll reenactment. Where's that on the ex? You all haven't seen it. Oh my God. My paralegal found it. How do I find it? I can send it to you. It. Wait, I think if is this about you found it? Is it the the TikTok lady? Yes. Is it this? Yes. Yes. Oh my God. Y'all on today's a. Oh, it's so quiet. It's one of the craziest things I've ever seen. On today's episode of The Women of the World, Be Patrick Clancy, I'm going to prove that Lindsey Clancy's bedroom was staged using Bratz dolls and a shoebox reconstruction of the crime scene because I noticed something. No, absolutely. Nobody else has noticed. Not even the black experts. And if they did notice they strategically omitted it from their testimony because it proves that Lindsey Clancy is innocent. I've managed to semi-accurately dress Lindsey in a black tank pop and jeans, but I thought she was my male preferential. I tell you this is what I'm going to produce. I've ever seen this. I've ever seen this. I've never seen this before. It didn't come with a weakage all-line and he doesn't have accurate clothing to what Patrick

9:20was wearing other than the first pair of shoes. Let's do a quick tour. This is the doorway. This is the Navy shelves. This represents the mirror. Blood spot A. This represents the pillow next to the mirror. I've just depicted using just a pencil here just for reference. Blood spot B. Blood spot C. And our drawers along with our knife. I've roughly indicated where the cups were and the spray bottles on the bedside table there. Then we have our Lindsey. I would hire her to find on the bed. I mean, it's a huge, three-year-old vintage phone. It wasn't really a thing. Showing this to the gerian like just give me a minute. I hear the theory that Lindsey had the window shut on her neck, but unfortunately I have a more plausible experience. The moment on the jury would buy up until Lindsey and my husband was crushed so let's get into it. I've also made sure I can move the bed because it's finally a whole 10 months long. Oh yeah, she does a lot of things. You don't need to have so much time. You get the flavor already. I assume there's no video of the strangulations. Can they tap her phone to listen to the strangulations?

10:27That's interesting. They didn't do that. I mean, they didn't do much of anything, but I don't know. She even had her phone. Should the defense have said to the female jurors, this is the women of the world versus Patrick Clancy? No. I think they might have gotten under direct from for that if they did that a little bit. Yeah. I didn't watch the case, but was it really just about sympathy for the human of Lindsey Clancy? No, so what it really was about was battle of the experts. So in Massachusetts, the state has to essentially disprove that she's insane. I mean, they use a different time to use criminal responsibility, but they had to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt. And the defense not entertain another killer? Or no, because she admitted it. She said she did. I mean, she admitted it, but if you look at the conspiracy theorist, when she admitted it, she was heavily medicated, intubated. I mean, she didn't admit it when she was... Deprues it. So if I was in Massachusetts and got high and then killed someone, I could say, I was crazy. Oh, you can't get high and do it that. No. I'm talking about what's like, wait, wait, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, he's not something. What if I drugged Ian and then Ian

11:30killed the guy? Oh, you could totally use that. Yes. It's like, you just get away with murder. If he drugged you and you didn't know it, oh yeah. What if it's been prescribed in voluntary manslaughter? What if it was accidental? You drugged him accidentally? Yep. I was... It doesn't matter. It only matters what happened to him. No, no, no. As long as he wasn't, if as long as he didn't drug himself. But then there's no criminal capability on me either. Right. You're good then. So I had my medication prescribed to me. And when I opened it up a pill fell out and landed it as a cup, he didn't know and drank it, lost his mind and killed somebody. You're both good. But if you did it on purpose, you go down for whatever he did. Of course. You go down for the murder though. On today's episode of Tim Castigirl explains how to get away with murder. So you go down for murder then. She was... She was an accident. That's why I asked. Nobody did. She was high on pharmaceuticals, correct? I think so. I think that there's a huge angle there. But the problem was they said they were therapeutic amounts, meaning that they weren't... Like she didn't take them outside of the recommended doses. Who said they were therapeutic? The doctors, the doctors. They didn't let this... The experts, they actually did a blood test and said,

12:31when I say therapeutic, meaning, you know, what she was prescribed. So she didn't like overdose on the meds, but she was on them. And they were psychotropic meds and they were taken them off and on. And here's the other thing that I think was important. So she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and they gave her all these SSRIs. SSRIs are the antidepressants. They drive you into mania if you don't have the other side. So like the doctors were pumping her full the SSRIs. And if she really was bipolar, that'll drive a person into mania. So will they charge the doctors? She went to like six different doctors. Yeah. They didn't know about each other. So they're each prescribing their own set. Oh, yeah. We got something here. The filing. I'm pulling it up. Oh, the loss. Yeah, I saw Fox had it, but they have one pay. Oh, the appeal. The defense attorney, Kevin, writing to his appeal. The courts are fused to consider evidence that a jurors are fusing to file applicable law. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, uh, here, the removal is particularly important because the jurors reason they reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness. I mean, he's pulling it out at this point. Like you got to love that man. Wow. That's who you want

13:35if you're. He's amazing at his job. I'd hire this guy. If you touch for the crime, you want that. So the argument is that everyone agrees she's mentally, she was, you know, mentally ill. And this guy's choosing not to say not guilty because he has it. He's discriminating against the mentally ill. I wonder if there was something else in that note, you know, like I will never find a mentally ill person or what if that just because he's crazy doesn't mean she was guilty. The whole that juror wasn't right. The poor person wrote it. So who knows what they wrote? Maybe, but maybe they said they said he's claiming that being nuts doesn't excuse you for murder. Maybe. And then they're like, okay, he's holding it against her. This is a wild argument because it's like, it's creative. It's basically means that if an expert says you're crazy, everyone has to agree otherwise they're discriminating against you. Isn't half the country crazy at this point? I'm more than half. You mean one percentage of the country is on the other side of the country. But you mean the female have 51% then 51% of the population. It's actually just liberals. I'm not joking. What percentage of liberals are on SSRIs?

14:37Dude, if I could get a therapeutic dose of psychotropics from the doctor and kill people and be leaked, because don't give him ideas. Isn't this a slippery slope? Why is she doing so many people are mentally ill. Doesn't this set a dangerous precedent where it does. But if you think about it, I mean, I keep going back to the fact that she doesn't want her kids dead. You know, this is not something that she's taking a pill and then using this as an excuse. Like, she's horrified. And if you watch me in the trial, that lady is horrified. I mean, she wants to kill herself. She has tried to kill herself. Like, she is miserable. She did not want her kids dead. But then why did she work? She worked pretty hard at it. I know, but I fully believe that in a sane mind she didn't want those kids. But just like every other law and every other president, if you, okay, good faith, yeah, she didn't want to kill her kids, but aren't there evil people who could exploit that and then create a paper trail that makes people think they didn't want to kill their kids, but they actually do. And then they kill them and say, whoops, I'm insane. They could. So so different. It's killed the kids again. So the difference here though is that they had the defense actually had some really good experts like, credible experts, experts that work for the state regularly that

15:40said she was insane. So I mean, yeah, you could buy an expert. Of course, I mean, you can find an expert that'll say just about anything, but you can't find a good one. And they were really credible. So that's what the state was really. How would they know? Right? They never weren't diagnosing her at the time. They're talking to her later. And they can't go back in time, get in a reminder and see. But he ever can like, mental illness. Right. So to me, that's, there's an that's an inherent impeachment of their testimony. But would you never? They're giving it like a, what they think is their best guess. Yeah. But they can't have any degree of certainty. They weren't there. They had a medical degree is what they said. Medical degree of certainty. But honestly, how would you ever mental illnesses? Well, if she'd been, she'd been diagnosed with psychosis before she killed her kids, that would be more credible to me, right? It makes it look much less like a fabricated legal defense because psychosis was never mentioned until after she killed her kids, got a defense attorney who knew he needed psychosis for the legal defense. That's not true because she was diagnosed with bipolar too, which does have psychosis as symptoms. And she had had some hallucinations. But it's not common. She didn't have a lot of these really uncommon things. It is. Right. So having psychosis and being able to plan

16:45very unusual can it happen? Yes. But it's very uncommon. Yeah. Having bipolar and it's extensive psychosis, very unusual, very uncommon. And when you take uncommon events that only to be strung together like pearls on a string and everyone's uncommon and you multiply them out, the fact that that would lead to this kind of insanity that would release criminal culpability, that's what I don't find credit. Why can't we just throw people who have psychosis and jail? Oobly yet. What else? What? Oobly yet. Explain it, Ian. It's a hole. It's a deep hole. Dark. And they back in ancient France, it means to forget. Oobly yet. And they would take people and they throw them down in this 40 foot pit with rats and other dead bodies that are rotting and have one of those here's it up and walk away. Yeah. You would basically. In today's front, you have to do capital punishment. If you wanted someone to die, but you didn't want to kill them publicly, you would put them in the Oobly yet and be like, I guess they died in prison. Oh my God. That seems like a little bit too much. What about an island? Yes. Yes. Actually, wait, wait, hold on. They're not talking about sitting in order, you know, the Cape. They're talking about sending a mental institution for forensic

17:49friends. It's jail. What did we do? So, so we have an idea here at Tim Kast about the island. And as a criminal defense attorney, I'm curious what you think. The idea is when someone, it's just, you know, they're really bad. We just drop them off on an island and leave. Oh my God. And there's no laws and they can just deal with it. Oh my God. I love it. Yeah. I've always thought that was it. Let's monetize it. She's shut up. Camber. Oh, yeah. You get to watch. I think it's like it's like if you had, I mean, they kind of do that. It's kind of prison. That kind of what. Yeah. They just kind of down to the devil is we don't got to spend the chase. Basically the Chas. Yeah. That's the Chas. Yeah. That's kind of what we don't got to. But we don't got to spend the money. I mean, a chapter in the book is called Lord of the Chas because they just gave them an island just like the kids in the Lord of the Chas. That's like those places where they're they you can use drugs like out in public and stuff. Yeah, but then you get Greta Tumberg sailing up and freeing them and being like we need to bring them off the island. Yeah. It's too much. It's too dangerous to punish people. Send them the portal. I think Clancy should be in prison. This is gross. She killed her. It's killing children. What is it? A symptom of psychosis? She's going to a forensic mental institution, which is not I mean, it's it's just like prison, but it actually treats

18:53you and actually gives you what can you explain to me like why it is that that precedent was established where if you have psychosis, then all of a sudden you're no longer treated the same. Just a public problem. Mostly. Yeah. It mostly goes back to Old England where they did not think so the original goal of punishment is deterrence is to make sure that people don't do it. Well, if you're crazy, you can't be deterred because you're crazy. So why are you multiple, culpable? Why should you be locked up if you can't deter someone who's mentally ill? They didn't have TikTok back then. They did not and they did not have rats, dolls, right? Now one half your population is completely crazy. He didn't. And I think we need to change. And honestly, most juries don't go within sanity. I mean, it is a defense that loses almost all the time. Like I've had one client. I've been doing this 25 years. I had one client that was found insane and it's crazy because I say crazy, but the state's doctor said he was completely sane. I go to try to go to trial with him and he literally crawls under the table and wouldn't come out. And I'm like, he's sane. Let's go. Like it's not sane. Do you think that she'd be found guilty if the jury was 12 men? Yes. I don't know if she'd

19:54be found guilty. Oh, yeah. It might still be hung. I think there's some men that are just like postpartum. Like I trust you, but I'm not touching that. You know what I mean? Like I've never done it. I don't want to go there. I don't want to say it's real. I don't want to say it's not real. You get crazy sometimes, you know, like maybe something's going on. Like I think there's, I think there's men out there that think that. I mean Patrick doesn't think she's guilty. Her own husband. Well, clearly a man of poor judgment though. Yeah. Yeah. Agreed. I wouldn't trust that guy. But I mean, I mean, don't even get me started on him. But like if, you know, if he doesn't, I mean, he's intimately involved. He knows everybody and he's not finding her responsible. So that could be completely self protective, right? I mean, he looks back and says, oh my god, I should have seen something. I should have done something. He said he could say, hey, for all I knew she was fine. Fine mother. She loved her kids, right? Nothing, no red flags for me to see. I mean, he should have done something. Like everybody kind of should have done a little bit more to protect the kids. But yeah, if you have a crazy spouse, I mean, I had one and she kept threatening suicide and I eventually was like, you know what? I got to go. I'm going to the park with my friends. And I left

20:56her there and on our way to the park, an ambulance came driving by me in the other direction. I was like, I think that's for her. Yeah. And we just kept going to the park. I found out later it was. She had taken a bunch of pills. There were no kids involved. She easily, it's just at some point you just can't make some camera. Kill them. So the camera jostled. They come back. We are way over time. That's usually an indicator. We are. Yeah. Like they're they're they're they're getting the framing ready. I mean, I think the cameraman like steps up. Yeah. It's right, right, right. Our steps in the platform and it moves the camera. So what is this hung? Is it anticipated to be a hung jury on the murder charges alone? It sounds like it may be. So if his appeal that he just did doesn't work, it's going to be a hung jury on everything. Period. Which means they can charge it again. Everything. How long? How far away until they can bring up the case next week? Do they have to be different attorneys? Nope. Different jurors. The same. Yes, different jurors. There's different jurors. Yep. They have to pay. They have to start from square one. So they start over same judge, all that, but they get different jurors. The thing for me about retrials that sucks is you have a transcript from the first trial. So it becomes so cumbersome and

21:59longer because you've got prior testimony that you're going through. It's like, it takes for to call the same people to retestify. Yeah, but they can call new people. So like if one of the witnesses sucks or the jury didn't like them, they can fix that. I was sure. I was happy about. But with the written house trial, do you remember that NBC reporter followed them back to their hotel? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was after I testified and I was like, am I going to have to do this again? Yeah. Wow. Right. It was. Yeah. So traumatic. But what if you refuse? Like, so he's a witness. Let's say he I could have refused because the subpoena out of state. I didn't have to honor this. A peanut out of state. So only if they domesticated, they would have. Yeah. Domesticate your subpoena in that. I have no idea. I was like, I'm going anyway. Yeah. I don't think they had to. I told the prosecution called me because the new defense was going to call me. So I just told them I would do whatever I had to do to tell the truth. But yeah, apparently I didn't have to honor the out of state. So what if what if what if you get subpoenaed like they they can tell you to testify? And then there's a mistrial. How many mistrials until they give up? Like is it usually just like if there's a mistrial and another mistrial, they just.

23:00And so the D.A. That's the thing. The D.A. can totally decide to keep retrying it. Can they can they compel me to keep coming back? What if I say I'm not doing this? They can compel you to keep coming back. There is a point where they can probably read your prior testimony. Okay. But that's nobody wants to read testimony. What if testimony changes? Oh, oh, that's a big one. Tested many changes. Then they impeach you. Your parents. Yes. Yes. But which one's true? What if you're like, you know what honestly I misremembered and I made a mistake. Which is likely to be the more accurate memory. The one closer to the event or the one today. Yeah, but that one was three years after. So it's, you know, the whatever statement you gave right after the event. But you're going to read your testimony. Yeah. You're going to prep, you know, zoom that again. You're going to there. Something's happening. But you're going to read your testimony. But that's a lot of work. I mean, retralls are not fun. What if what if what if they come out and it's just like somehow they all change their mind. She's guilty. Like that the A D the A D.A. filing was so offensive to the jury that they all said, oh, screw this. She's guilty. I think if they try it though, I think they'll fix the prosecution.

24:02I mean, they could read they could retry this in a week and make it clean. What are the prosecution do wrong? They so in closing, they were sympathetic. They were not sympathetic during the trial. They know she's mentally ill. Like she's mentally ill. She tried to kill herself. I mean, they just didn't accept that. And they they went overboard with like a lot of the gruesome details and prosecutors do that a lot. Here we go. Here we go. It's happening. Where's the popcorn? We actually have I want to hear the Boston girl. The purpose of the record we return back to the matter. Commonwealth versus Lindsey Clancy. All potty, surprise and excluding the jury. All right. Council it's my understanding that the SJC issued their order that the emergency request for relief was denied and the temporary stay is lifted. And so it would be my intention at this time to call the jurors back in. And as I indicated to you before to declare misdrive. I understand your honor and at the risk of incurring the wrath of the court. I'd like to raise

25:06an additional issue just for purposes of the go writing to the court because this I believe constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution and the recognition. In that case, the Supreme Court shut him down to Massachusetts. So he wants to go fed. The jury reports. He's great. So a poor person that in the deliberation that a juror refuses to follow the law. The issue is handled under federal rules of criminal procedure 23B, but the liar itself that we're dealing with clearly indicates that a judge has the authority to excuse a deliberating juror for quote good cause and quote and allow the remaining 11 jurors to return a valid verdict and or with the substitution of one of the jurors that have been waiting obviously as alternates. While the first circuit acknowledges that a juror's refusal to follow the law or instructions, constitutes good cause for dismissal that does in pros

26:07procedural issues as to how the court would navigate and which would require a hearing. The court standard is United States versus Sepulveda, SCP-ULVD-D-A, for a circuit, 1993. And in that case, you're on it, which is a significant precedent for a circuit address the underlying concept of nullification and where a juror refuses to follow the court's instructions. And in the Sepulveda case, the court held that while jurors possess a raw power to a quit for any reason, they have a significant duty and their duty requires them to apply the law as given to them by the court. If a juror abdicates this duty, it triggers the court's authority to intervene and the court would then have a procedure where you would inquire just like a hearing like we were suggesting that the court should have a hearing. So I would suggest you run of that clearly under the first circuit law, a federal law as well as an argument to the court Massachusetts law that we have a juror who has, according to the four-person, is the only person

27:13who is basically holding out, so to speak. And unfortunately, they're not holding out based on a good faith issue with the faxor, with the law, but they're holding out as a result that even though they have agreed and expressed doubt, they are refusing to apply the law as you have given it. So I would ask again that you conduct a hearing and understand that you're probably going to deny that. So I stated earlier this morning that request will be denied. All right. So we ready to bring the jury in? So it's a mistrallant. A mistrallant? Yep. Confirmed? Well, he's going to be. It's about to be. Now, but... No, it's been... The jury's not telling the judge anything, the judge is going to tell the jury it's a mistrallant. So they don't read anything like they don't hear anything? The jury won't read anything. The jury's not making the decision here, the judges. They made their decision. So try to do it in a deadlock. Can she go home now? No. She's showing to the jury's eyes, right? Well, she goes in the same position she was in before the trial and she's not on bond.

28:24An advanced group of monkeys we are, man. Why are they showing that? Why are they showing that? Everyone's winking. You're right. I'm going to have to do the right thing. We return present for the... What? 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates in the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsey Clancy, all of the parties are present. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right, members of the jury. At this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked and I'm going to declare a mistrall. All right. I just wanted to make a comment. I love it. I love it. Buff. In through World War II, Winston Churchill... This can only cause trouble. He's got the key up. Shut up, say less. When England pretty much stood against that's Germany alone. And so Churchill, oftentimes, had to talk to the citizens and say, let us brace for our duties.

29:26I always like that phrase. And I thought of that phrase when all of you were agreeing to be honest, jury, the agreed to brace for that duty. And you turned out to be trash. You knew how long the case was going to go. You knew how difficult the case was going to be to listen to facts wise. But still, you brace for that duty. And I just kind of wanted to also let you know, I watch every day, day after day, week after week, all of you performing that duty that you're braced for. And I just kind of wanted to let you know, I understood how hard everybody worked in this case. I understood that you all gave everything you could. And probably more than you thought you could. And so on behalf of myself, I just want to thank you so much. You should be proud for what you did. You're braced for that duty. You're performed that duty. And I just kind of wanted to thank you by half myself and behalf of the Carmel Massachusets.

30:31Thank you so much. The only thing I am going to ask one more thing is that what I'd like to do is be able to come back and thank you personally. I'm going to have to talk to the council for just a couple of minutes. So if you can stay just for a couple of minutes, not to go over the deliberations, really like that, but just to thank you personally again for just an incredible commitment and dedication that each and every one of you showed here. So I just want to thank you so much. And with that, you're discharged. Thank you. So was Clancy Hitler then? Was that his point? I don't know what. That's right. That's right. Let's saw a poll on Twitter. Who would you rather have a look after your kids? That's actually a tough question.

31:33That actually is. Like who? That was him and Lee. I love my kids. But Hitler won. Art school Hitler. Yeah. We were like 1942. I think what I had said at the end of the evidence that just kind of wanted to echo again, I wanted to compliment all three council. A trial like this, so hard, so difficult. And so I just kind of wanted to thank the three of you for your efforts and regards to this. So with that, if you talk, we should probably pick a status date where we have trial assignment date. So I would ask. I would ask. I'm sorry. Sorry. I didn't interrupt. Yeah, but. I know I would like to argue at 25 B2 and it has to be done within five days. So I mean, I would like. If possible to have this on for a hearing on a motion for required finding reconsideration, 25 B2 on Tuesday. And my request, assuming that you deny that motion would be that we am panel on the following Monday.

32:39In fact, my schedule. And also, so. So. Glad by saying. I'm not saying. As a defense lawyer, like that's a lot. My thinking is to try it sooner rather later, but I'm not sure that sooner. And. It's a situation. Kevin Reddington just bounced the trap court schedule. He totally did. He's good. Witnesses schedule. But setting aside the atrocity, like Kevin Reddington just. Just maybe sometime later in the fall. How does she get you to the lawyer? One pick a date, maybe a couple of weeks down the road. So everybody could get their calendars together. Monday Monday. Monday. Let's go. And I'll take this first 12. Yeah, we met the next one. Okay. It's a request to are you on Tuesday and then the next Monday. And the next morning, we're finding reconsideration within five days. But you can file it. Maybe it's there that hearing within the five days. I'd like to, but I mean, I know you'd like to, but I, you know. Maybe we can do it later in the week. Maybe not Tuesday.

33:40Maybe Thursday or so. Sure. And I'm going to be out of the state. I told the 20 second. I have a dinner with her. It was a while before. Go forward with that. You want to pick, we can do is pick that status date trial assignment date. It actually then do the argument of the 25 rule 25. Okay. I'm not sure the prosecutors availability is relevant. No. Of course, the government is like, uh, actually on vacation. I'm on the 28th. This, this single juror is going to write a book and be a legend and no. Oh, he's going to every single show everywhere. It's a called in 30 rock. The rural juror. Yeah. Uh, I would ask if it's a great, I mean, the ex is blowing up with like legend hero. He refused. Have you read it? No, the juror wants people to find out who this juror is. That's fine. Fox news. Rogan, you name it. So the juror admitted doubt, but then refused to call innocence.

34:43That's so, so the four person sent the note. So we only know what the four person said that juror was. Yeah. That's essentially what they did. And imagine this. Imagine like we're deliberating and you're like everyone saying not guilty. And I'm the ones saying not guilty. Uh, and then you, you say something like, but you have to admit it's at least possible. That she was crazy. Sure, but I don't think so. Ah, that's doubt. Right. So they might be saying he pressed out when he was actually saying, but not enough or he could have been saying, I don't care that she's mentally ill. I know that the law says that that's reasonable. But I don't care. And the other thing too is they wanted to pull the jury. Council, thank you. Because it could hold the jury. It might be doubt only on like one issue. So like it was what three charges first, second and manslaughter. So they could all agree on first and second, but the one guy is saying, no, I think it's manslaughter. And so when they're like he expressed out, it may have been doubt on the first two charges. She might have said, I don't think she premeditated it. Right, right. And then it would only be second, which is huge because the retrial then could be in front of a judge, not a jury.

35:45Although I don't think Kevin Ridington would do that. I think he'd want a jury, but it makes it makes a difference. Yeah, it definitely makes a difference. And besides if you can whittle off a charge, you want to whittle off a charge. Yeah, as a defense lawyer, I mean. Yeah, Massachusetts is one of those states where the defendant can demand a bench trial. And there's meaning there's no jury. The judge acts as the jury. There's nothing to say can do about it. This is the new left right divide. Like all of these liberals are posting like, this is ridiculous. And you know, I don't completely disagree, but I don't agree with the politics. But the idea is you have a not guilty findings that for one person who will not uphold the law or adhere to the law, I would not want to be innocent and have some person in a jury for political reasons or personal reasons refuse to say not guilty. Right. And that's how you have to think about it. You got to so the constitution requires us to put out the atrocity, put out the kids. Victims are not in the constitution. We don't protect their rights in the constitution. We protect citizens rights. We protect all humans rights.

36:46But that's the thing. So everyone's caught up on what happened. And it's atrocious. Nobody's disputing that. But the constitution doesn't worry about that. The constitution only worries about her rights. So here's an interesting question. Like we know we all know jury nullification. They couldn't just acquit because they're like, I don't care. They can, oh, can they convict? Can they, can they, what's the, what's the opposite of jury nullification? They can. Certification on a much jury certification. Certification and the bail safe for that is the judge. So, so I'll tell you the answers. So there is a standard that if they do convict and there's no evidence, they have to reverse it on appeal. It's insufficient evidence. Jackson versus Virginia to US Supreme Court cases. Can you get a directed verdict? But you should. Yeah, the other thing is you should be able to get a directed verdict. But judges don't do that. And what that is is like, if, if the jury convicted and there's no evidence, then I could argue as the defense lawyer to the judge, you need a direct a verdict of not guilty, which basically means you need to force a not guilty verdict. They can do that. And that can happen. I mean, imagine a crime has like five required elements. Yeah. The state literally introduced zero evidence on one of those elements. Just as a technical matter.

37:46What are the elements just for those that? Well, I mean, just like look at murder, right? You took the human life. It was premeditated. You did it in this county. Then you time like it's crazy. But a lot of times, case. Oh, yeah, here's a question. Like let's say somebody, like somebody lives in Kentucky. And they follow a woman from Kentucky, cross state lines into, I think, what West Virginia has a good state. And then kill that woman. Ooh, I know this. Well, yeah, so like what, which venue is proper venue? Both. It can be you can have the kidnapping in the, in the state. No, not kidnapping. He's filed the person once they were in West Virginia. They can be prosecuted in three different places. They can be prosecuted where they were kidnapped, prosecuted where they were killed, and also prosecuted in the federal system, but they cross state lines. Not kidnapped. Okay. So a woman's like, yeah, he, he, they were stalked. So they can be prosecuted for stalking in the first state. That state that is stalking no one cares. You know, let's say there's no stalking. And let's say they're both from Kentucky and they both happen, stance, end up in, you know, in West Virginia at a local bar. Like, because they live on state, near the state line, right?

38:47All three places. They can be prosecuted. But the murder would be prosecuted in the state where the actual murder happened. But the feds could actually prosecute for cross. So, so it has it ever occurred where like, you know, for instance, we're in West Virginia, but Virginia, Maryland and PA are all within a stone's throw. It's like the quacks happens a lot. What if, has it ever happened where like, say, somebody in Maryland, two people from Maryland are in PA and one person gets the, guess, murdered, but then Maryland prosecuted in Maryland for that murder. Has that ever happened like that? Even though it didn't happen in Maryland? Yes. Is there a venue challenge? There is, so there's a case in Georgia. I worked on the appeal where the person, it's a death penalty case, the guys on death row. And he kidnapped a lady in Georgia and took her to Tennessee and killed her in Tennessee. He got charged with kidnapping with bodily injury. He's the only person on death row for a non homicide case because he's on death row for kidnapping with the death resulting, but the death didn't result in Georgia. So they couldn't bring it up, but they're still there. So he's not, sir, he's not on death row for the murder.

39:48He's on death row for kidnapping with a murder resulting. Murder resulted in Tennessee. Kidnapping happened in Georgia. Well, so let's say somebody lives in Kentucky and then he murdered someone in West Virginia and then goes back to Kentucky. Ken Kentucky, or, oh, it says, a guy from Kentucky goes to West Virginia, killed somebody who's back to Kentucky. Ken Kentucky, do anything. Not if he didn't come into crime there now. So West Virginia issues a warrant for his arrest. So this grabbed him on the warrant. Yeah. Right. And then, and then, and then, and then, so what is, so what is West Virginia, they filed the fads and say we need the fads to go in and... No, they can issue their own warrant. They have the state of honor, the warrant. Yeah, we have this thing. It's called the interstate compact with all the states. And so any state can issue a warrant and another state has to actually get you. The state that wants you has to pay for you to go there. What if the state doesn't want to? And he's can live in Kentucky and not be, not be extradited. That's kind of crazy. They'll have a warrant for the rest of life. Wasn't there a case where a woman got an abortion and then one state issued a warrant over it but the other state wouldn't honor it? Probably. I think that was, I think that happened. I would guarantee that's happened. Yeah, there was, there was one where two women talked

40:50and one woman advised her on how to go get an abortion in another state and they called it a conspiracy. I can see that. I mean, it happens a lot in the international levels. Yeah, I was about to say. Somebody will commit a murder in America, flee to Europe and we'll try to expedite them from Europe and Europe won't send them back unless we promise not to execute them. What about that strip in Wyoming or whatever? You know what I'm talking about? The like strip that does not part of the US or? Well, no, it's because it's like a national park. Oh, there's no, there's no residents. So there's no peers. There's no, there's, yeah, that's, well, you couldn't get a junior here because there aren't peers. Yeah, so how do you, so the, the, the story as it goes is, let me, let me, let me pull it up. I know what you're talking about. Yeah, that's, that's never happened and I think everybody hopes it'll never happen but someone will go and commit a crime there for, you know, just to see. What's, it's the zone of death. That's what it's called. But the thing is there apparently was some guy who committed a crime there and the feds charged him. Did they have a map on that? That's actually smart. The feds would have to do it because the feds draw. Because the feds draw from like a larger, yeah. And so he tried making the argument that this strip has no,

41:55there's no jury of my peers. Therefore, you can't charge me and they said, we're gonna do it anyway and you're gonna fight the federal government to take a plea deal and he agreed to take a deal. Yeah, because the feds, their jurisdiction is not just the state, it's the whole area. The zone of death. The zone of death, that's crazy. And that's, in Yellowstone, that's where they murder everybody. If you've ever seen the show. Oh, yeah, on the show they do. Yeah, it's like in a train ride and then they drive them off to the strip and dump the body because they're like, no one lives here, no one searches and they mention in the show, there's no jury of a peer. So nobody could be charged anyway. Well, no one's gonna find the body. I mean, something's gonna eat it. Have you ever, did you ever do like criminal defense stuff or have you guys ever done, like, I imagine you've done murder? Have you ever defended murderers? Oh, yeah. I've never done a murder. Only from the other side, the self defense angle. So when a person comes to your office, charge. If they're charged with murder, they usually don't come to my office. They usually have to go to the jail. Right. They're not out.

42:55Mostly. And then how do they do the- And how do they do the- Do they solicit you? Yes. They call your office and say, and so- Loved one usually. When you meet with them in the jail, do you have, are you worried about surveillance? Like they're gonna, they're gonna violate like the cops might secretly try and record you. Oh, yeah. Yeah. We have certain things we do to make sure that- White noise generators. Well, I mean, there's certain things that I can say that they're supposed to minimize, but I don't always trust them. But- Well, it's because- I think they're listening, or if I know they're listening because there's a wiretrap, I'll always say some colorful things about them on- Because they- They won't be able to use it in court or anything. They can still listen. And they can use that for investigation. And then find it justification. So if he says something, like, look, I ditched the weapon, then I've refined it. It's in the right place. More like my theory, you know, if I'm talking about my theory, that's why I always meet with clients in person. So when you- So when you're in like a secure environment, like let's say they get bail, they're in your office, do you ask them, did you do it? Not usually, because I usually don't want to know that. Yeah. You have to admit it. It's not the relevant legal question. It just isn't. Yeah, it's really not.

43:55It's really not part of my analysis. I would not be able to put them on the stand and let them testify that they didn't do it. If you knew- Yep. Answer. But I will tell you most cases, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yeah. You know, it's rare that they just did it. And it's exactly how they said it was. I do a lot of legal consults for self-defense cases, where I never talked to the defendant. Yeah. Unless a defendant's going to testify, they're going to testify then I need to know what they're going to say. Yeah. But if they're not going to testify, I just look at the evidence that the jury's going to be presented. If you guys ever had a client that you could just tell, right, when you looked at them, they were evil. Yes. Oh, yeah. Yes. And then you were like, I got to make sure this guy goes free. Yeah. Oh, no. I mean, so- What are you guys on the spot? I am a super-constitution lover. Like, I love the constitution. Every-all of my answers, everything is based on the constitution. I'm like obsessed with the constitution. I have it hanging on my wall. So I fully believe that our system only works. If someone like me will defend someone that is awful. I can, and I concur with that. I just have a nod legal practice. So my practice is consulting to other attorneys. They're the lead counsel on their cases.

44:57They're providing the cellist advocacy. They call me for an expert opinion on the self-defense law aspects of the case. But I'm not going to take money from people and then give them a report that says they're clients guilty. I would, I just don't feel that's the right thing to do. So if I look at the case and I'm like, listen, this self, this is just not going to work at self-defense. Well, obviously, then they don't want to hire me anyway. Yeah. Do you guys often get clients that just, I already know the answer to this, but they just think they're so smart and they cleverly covered things up, but they are dumb as a box of rocks. You should remember the average IQ is 100. Most of the clients are dumb or than that. Right. And like, I mean, I'm trained across examine. So I can subtlety across examine a client. You know the story that I robbed a bank and he robbed lemon juice on his face because he was told that lemon juice is used in disappearing ink. And so he thought that by rubbing lemon juice on his face, the camera wouldn't see his face. So instead of wearing a mask, he just wiped lemon juice. Just sad. He's that dumb. That's sad. It's an insanity. We'll just point it out. Like maybe we have to say we actually have. I have to.

45:58So in Georgia, we still have mental retargetation as a defense. Really? That word. Yes. That naughty word. You know, I just realized Ian can kill anyone he wants because all he needs to do is make the jury watch any episode of it. Well, that's right. Keep thinking about it. If he's thinking about it, if I get five documents stay out of it. I mean, six foot of medicines. Yeah. They don't know. Then I can be like, Hey, nobody's at fault. Ian, the doctor is going to get charged for negligence for over prescribing Lindsey Clancy and had a suit. Well, you know, they sued. I don't know if you saw her. So Patrick sued the doctors for medical malpractice, which is a civil in the. They get hit with criminal charges. Yeah. In the future, Ian's going to be on trial for triple homicide. Homicide. Homie. And the defense is going to be a like ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I'd like to play you this compilation from Tim Kest, I wrote 10 minutes long and it explains clearly insane. He is just really insane. They're going to watch it and they're going to be like, not guilty. I don't understand what he's saying. The man needs help. I can't convince. Well, no, you asked that. I pulled it up less than one percent of cases and in an insanity verdict. So I mean, that's about to go up. And also, no, three don't have it.

47:00Yeah. I think it's three, something like that. The most, it's very, very, very, more than three missed trials, but there have been documents of four trials. How many, how many sites have no contest? A lot of them. Yeah. They just call it different things. No. They're only really for traffic cases. Oh, okay. No contest. Like if you get a traffic ticket and you just don't want to go to court, so you just want to pay it, but you don't want to play guilty, you play no contest. Nolo Contendree, that's a lot in terms of. You're not admitting guilt, but you're saying I'll pay it. Yeah. But you know what they all have? You know what they all have. They all have something called Alfred versus North Carolina. Alfred Pley is different. Oh, yeah, yeah. What's that? We've talked about that before. Alfred Pley is where you admit guilt, but you're not admitting to the facts that the state basically believes. Right. So like you're saying that you think the state will convict you and you want to take a plea and be sentenced, but you're not agreeing to what they said you did. So somehow, so like maybe I killed her, but I didn't mean to kill her. I killed her with the knife instead of the gun and the state thinks you killed her with a knife. A lot of times it's a way of taking care of the criminal stuff without opening yourself up to civilized. Yeah. Have you guys ever watched Better Call Saul?

48:00Yeah. You know the scene where he's defending the liquor store robber and then he asked the defendant can you point out? All right. Right. He's like, right there's like, would you be surprised if I told you that's actually not the defendant? Please stand in the back of the courtroom. I feel like that's exculpatory. Yeah. The witness misidentified a guy. I had that happen once. It is allowed. So it's been 20 years. It was one of my first trials. I had an armed robbery and my client had been in jail for three years and my client was tiny and all of the police reports were this like tall guy had robbed three different stores like CVS Walgreens and I was like, it's not the right guy. It's not the right guy. It's not the right guy. So we get into trial. My client's been in jail for three years and the victim is up on the stand and the prosecutors like, can you identify the guy that robbed you in the courtroom? And it was the longest like two minutes of my life. This guy is like, and he goes back and he's like, nope. It's not here. And I literally was like, get up. So I dragged my client up. I stand him in front of him. I'm like, look, can he's like, that's not him.

49:02Wow. Yeah. Really happened. It was one of those TV moments. But what if you did a stunt like that? Would that be like a mistrial or like, what would that do? No, and that's going to hold you in contempt and we used to have so we don't really have lineups anymore, but we used to have lineups. And so we had all this misidentification having all the time. And that used to be a theory. Like you would have someone else who kind of looked like the guy sit at your table and then see if the witness could actually pick the right person out. Oh, I understand. Ups. Let's say even worse. That's just something happens on the street. The cruisers driving around looking just grabs the suspect and drags him over by the window and is this him? And of course, the person was just beat up or whatever. And I was like, yeah, I guess so. It's another black guy. It's cheese. I don't really do those that much anymore, but I know. I know. It's crazy. Well, I think Richie's right. Everyone's crazy now. Yeah. Every, you know what's going to happen? Every single, every gang banger in Chicago is going to go get a psycho valuation right now. And they're going to be like, oh, Doc, there's elephants everywhere. They're telling me to burn things. They're back. This guy's crazy. They're not going to believe it because in this case, so fill a site like we were talking

50:02about earlier, when you kill your kids, there's studies that the most common reason you kill your kids is some hallucination, some altruistic thing. I was looking it up at the break. And this was interesting in the Lindsey Clancy trial. So the guy that wrote the book on this was Lindsey Clancy's expert, Philip Reznik. He's like, he's the one that wrote the book on what's called altruistic fill aside. And he says that there's five motivations for a woman killing their kids. Altruism, acutely psychotic, fatal maltreatment, unwanted child or spouser revenge. So we know we don't have unwanted child, no spouser revenge, no fatal maltreatment. That's where you like to starve them. So it's acutely psychotic or altruistic. Altruistic is like, you think you're saving them. So you combine those. So throw them in jail if they think they're saving them and they kill them. But throw them in jail. So what were they doing? Sorry, that's altruistic. Yeah. Acutely psychotic. So look, real quick, altruistic is like, I was saving my kids from hell. Yes. Psychotic is just like the dark Lord told me to do it. What's the other one? Spouser revenge. Fatal maltreatment, which is like a star of your kid.

51:03Yeah. Unwanted child. And spouser revenge. Would altruism fall under altruism if they were like, my child is possessed by the devil and was too dangerous and had to be stopped? I think it would. So what he's saying, he's the expert. And Lindsey Clancy got him. So altruistic occurs when a parent believes the world is too cruel for the child. Or because the child is enduring suffering, real or perceived. Because we perceived. Because I, and it's often entwined with intended suicide. A mother who is suicidal may not want to leave her children motherless in a cruel world. And that's exactly what they said. But remember that. Just like his kids before they took over Hitler's bunker, he had made sure they all took cyanide pills so that they weren't captured by the allies murdered a family. But remember that's why I like so. It's crazy. And he also killed him. So that might have been rational because the Soviets would have done horrible things. But who's coming up with all these categories? Isn't it just some kind of like Freudian pseudoscience like. It's a forensic psychiatrist. Yeah. I took AP Psych in high school and it's all a bunch of DS. I mean, you like we were talking earlier. You can't take a flu test or a COVID test. There's no like positive, you know?

52:05What should I say? Can we recreate this psychosis in a scientific setting? No. Then it's not real. So what you all call them the soft sciences? Pretty soft, if you ask me. Sounds like the altruistic arguments just sounds like a very late abortion. That's what it sounds like to me. Well, that was one of the ones where it said unwanted child. It's like all the world is so bad. Also, this is the meme. This is the meme. This is the meme. This is the meme. This is the meme. This is the meme. The meme is that when we started getting this advocacy for at birth abortions, conservatives were like the next thing they're going to say is they can kill their kids and then you get Lindsey Klanson. Here we are. Yeah, exactly. There's nothing new. I mean, think about it. But it's Andrea Yates, what 20 years ago? Like this. But we didn't have pork. I'm telling you. I'm telling you. Support. The argument is this. It's never from the top to the bottom. It's a gradient. Meaning, you get massive widespread support, the women versus in Lindsey Klensy versus the world. And they're arguing, she did nothing wrong. She was suffering and she was drugged. And this is pushing, pushing the overtain window over. So eventually you get, well, yes, she should be locked away because what she did, next

53:07when you get a woman who gives birth and then kills a baby right away, they're going to argue, but this is no different than an at birth abortion. So and they're going to keep moving that line. You know, in Canada, they do that. So they treat the filiside killing of a child whose eight months of age or younger as less severe than of the child who are older. My God. This nuts. That's insane. That's insane. Earlier, you said that the criminal justice system is about deterrence, not punishment. What's supposed to be? When did they decide that? Because I want punishment. I know. Well, theoretically, from England, it's supposed to be deterrence because we want a safer society. We're not supposed to be punitive. We really are punitive in reality. Yeah. In theory, it's supposed to be about making the world safer. We're supposed to have police that prevent crime, not just prosecute it, you know, in theory. We just don't really do that anymore. I think that anybody ever prevent crime. How would they prevent crime? They'd have to be there. They'd have to be doing it. Yeah. Well, they do. In cities, there's a lot of crime prevention if you're doing community policing. If you're present in the community, people tend to not come out and do the crime in your face. Tend to. I mean, it does work. No, but they do it a block over.

54:08Right. I kind of be really in the audience. I think we don't have enough psychological manipulation of criminals. I think we do take a page out of the UK's book and anybody who supported Lindsey Clancy on the internet, they should go to their house and arrest them and be like, you're not mentally stable. Sorry. Well, no, all the women who defended Lindsey Clancy claiming that Patrick did it are doing it because they planned to murder their kids. And then exactly arrest them. Kill everybody. They're going to be like, I'm crazy. Look what I was posting on the internet. Round them up. Round them up. I don't like them. That's the rhetoric that she got drugged because I think she chose to drug herself. And then she did crazy things after she chose to do that to herself. So I mean, it is all her way. You're like, whoa, like if Richie shoots Ian, it's a crime, but if he takes drugs first, he's not guilty. Well, that's why they didn't get that charge. The judge said now, because Kevin Ridington tried that one, tried the involuntary manslaughter and the judge was like, no, I think I was ridiculous. Was it court like documented that she was drugged and not that she drugged herself? We don't even know how many drugs she was taking.

55:09We know how many drugs she was prescribed. It was 13 or 14 different medications, but they have all the bottles. And most of them are full. Here's one or two tablets. Here's a question. What if the voice was real? I'm not saying like, you know, I'm saying like, what if somebody literally was like intending to drive her crazy and drove her to it? Or demons? She called me real. That's the whole thing. She called me real. But no, no, no, I'm saying for criminal copability is hearing is if it was a comminglessly issue. If you keep hearing someone say, do it or else, do it now. Do you have a defense for there as a voice? And then they find out there was a speaker secretly implanted and the guy was actually doing it. They had technology that actually can do that. I got it. No, say like a guy can put a voice into your head without other people hearing it. Sure. Bibrates your skull. Like metaglasses. Of the voice of God. Well, it's with the with the alred device we can project sounds. We also have lasers. So like talking plasma in mentions, you can you can have a laser hit a wall and then create a high frequency sound. But just back to legal questions. I'm curious. If they discovered like let's say in the middle of the trial, they found evidence that there

56:12was a speaker in her couch that was actually transmitting a recording saying kill your kids. Would that be a legal defense? Would you get off? Or could you get off? Can an induced psychosis, right? If you had psychosis, then she doesn't have criminal culpability. Well, it's not it's not a question of psychosis. But if you said I kept hearing a voice and I was telling people, he told me I was crazy. And then only now did they find a speaker was actually putting the voice and I wasn't crazy the whole time. But I thought I was, is she going to get is there a defense there? There's a defense. It just depends on the jury. But I mean, you can put that defense up without a doubt. You could put up because there is like a legal doctrine for this like you were coerced. It would be the criminal responsibility because there's nothing that says like the flu. You know, there's nothing that says you're you're insane. So you don't have to have like a documented long mental illness. That could be something that was triggered some type of psychosis or something. Here's a question we brought up on the show the other day. And our assessment was that you're responsible for killing someone even if you're threatened to do so. But I'd like to get clarification from actual experts. If Richie put a like took Ian's loved one and then said, if you don't murder this person,

57:21I will murder your family member. Is Ian criminally responsible for that murder? Self defense, defensive self or others. So no, he's not saving anybody. No, no, no, no. Well, it depends on how it depends on how close in time it is to the situation. Like the holding the gun to his head and saying, I'll kill him if you don't like. He gets a call and there's Richie with a gun to Ian's mom's head saying, I want you to shoot a pranker right now where I kill your mom. And then Ian goes, no, I'll do it. And he kills him. Yeah. Is Ian responsible for killing Andrew? I would argue yes. I thought I thought the other party is responsible in their own way for their criminal conduct and inducing that coercion, coercing that. But you're not going to get the legal system is not going to apply a lesser value on my life than on that other person's life. And in the law, they're both equal value lives. I would. I have a duress defense. It's like heat of passion. You've probably heard the defense where, you know, a husband goes in and his wife's cheating on him and then, you know, in the heat of passion, he kills the guy. Like it's a lesser included. I think, and I'm not saying it's so culpable. Yeah, it's still culpable. It's just not like worst to read. It would be, it would be like a man.

58:21Right. In my opinion, if you are threatened with the harm of a loved one, unless you kill another person, the charge should be greater. Yeah. Well, it should be, it should be substantially greater. Why? Uh, deterrence. We're not talking about an issue of insanity, which I understand you're not going to just or create a certain crazy person. But if you are told, uh, like someone says, hey, I'm going to harm your family member unless you kill the man in front of you right now. But I'm thinking I will be, I will, I will get a, like the things they will do to me are so substantially worse. I can't do it. Right. It shouldn't be, I feel like when you say, you're going to do worse to than you're dying. Right. Well, your kid dying. I mean, do you care if you get a present? No, I'm going to say, this is, this is, this is a challenge. I'm going to put a person to save my kid. Well, I have, I have, how many, how many people would you murder to save your kid? Yeah. Thousand? Thousand? Thousand. Thousand. That's why there's, there's, there's to good. Everybody's of direct. Right. Yeah. I mean, that's, that's an interesting quite, I mean, you have a kid too.

59:22If she's in ping kidnapped your kid and was like, now your kid will die and the only thing you could do is launch a new can wipe out all of China to save your kid. Would you do it? Yes. Oh my God. Oh, I was. It's tough, right? I did my kid. I know. I do anything. I'd die from it. I mean, I, they said, it's barisma. Your kid, was you appointed him on the board of barisma? No, I don't know. No. No. How far would you go to save your kid? Only at the given time. Okay. See, that's entirely different. And then in this metaphor has a gun literally to your head. I was just shoot the guy where I'm going to shoot you in the head. And he does shoot the guy. Does he go to prison for murder or do I as the director? That's the question I was asking. But it's even more, it's not, I'm going to go after your kid. It's, I'm going to end your life right. Oh, right. You look like I right. You're both the child. He'd be shocked. Oh, yeah. I'm a defense, but he'd be charged. Yeah, he did. You're on a spaceship with a bunch of aliens and the aliens have the glor-block device up to your kid's head. And they say destroy the earth or we kill your child. See you guys. It's all a matter of legal arguments, right? So he was subject to being charged.

1:00:23His legal defense would be the defense of duress. Yeah. He could be acquitted on that. He's subject to being charged means he may not even get charged. But sure, I'm prosecuted as can always not charge. I think about soldiers when they're given an order to go massacre, village, search and destroy, like they don't go to prison for it. I'm not sure they're often ordered to massacre villains. And then they'd be more settled than that. What's that? Massacre village. Well, they say search and destroy everything that moves. They're all Viet Cong. You know, there's no questioning it. And you go and you do the job you realize there were just kids and- Oh, you're going to, you're going to, you're going to, listen, eat. You're not really violating the laws of the country they're in, but it's matter. US is going to get them out. No, no, no, you misunderstand. If I'm like, let's say I'm like a commanding officer, right? And you're the guy flying the helicopter and I say I want you to fire missiles and blow up that village. And then you're like, oh man, who goes to jail? You do because I throw you into the bus. And I, I deny it. I never told them to do that. And then the chain of command set- It's apparently ordered it, the lieutenant- Yep. Captain denied it, giving- Of course, of course. And it goes to prison. Yep. And the soldiers get off. Captain's. Oh my God. What the me-line is.

1:01:23Perk's the only good one. Yes. My-line. He lights me-line. My-line. And the captain, the lieutenant and the soldiers testified that the captain gave the order multiple times it was screaming, go, we, we don't have time for this. Go, finish it off. And then- Then they threw the list- You could do you guys- You guys know the story of the, the coup in Turkey. I think it was, this was like 10 years ago. A bunch of Turkish soldiers went to the boss first bridge. And then all of a sudden this battle ensued. There's like a helicopter shooting at people. And the media reported that these soldiers were attempting to stage a coup against Erdogan who was traveling out of the country. He turned around and came back. And then they arrested a bunch of scholars and politicians. The conspiracy theory is that- And I don't even think it's actually a conspiracy theory. I think there's some evidence, maybe the case, but I'm not entirely sure. I'm not from Turkey. These were low level like, you know, just low ranking soldiers in the Turkish army who were ordered by the higher ups that there was a terror attack and we need you to secure the bridge. They had no intention of staging a coup. They were just, they were just told-

1:02:24Oh my gosh. The theory is that Erdogan wanted the coup attempt so we could round up his political adversaries and remove them from power including academics. So they send a bunch of soldiers to the bridge, dumb as a box of rocks and clueless thinking we're here to guard the bridge. And the media says they're staging a coup so villains came out and beat them to death and drag their bodies. Yeah. Wow. Yep. So they're always going to throw the bottom guy. Here's the thing. Yeah. Anything can be a defense in this country if the judge lets me argue it. Really? Pretty much. Pretty much. What's an example of that being kind of a greedy guy? Like what's the craziest thing? Like the craziest defense? Like the crazy thing a judge has let you do or someone you've seen. Well they usually don't. That's the thing. They try to curb it. Sometimes a lot of cases you've got to defense like ignorance of the law. Like maybe you didn't know or maybe they didn't know their age. That happens a lot. I mean there's a there's a fine line like in Georgia just for example 16 is the age of consent for sex. 18 is the age of consent for pictures. This is not a popular subject but it's a very interesting one. That's weird. Yeah. So you can have sex with a 16 year old and it's not a crime but if you take a picture of her then it's a crime.

1:03:25Yeah. Take a naked picture. A lot of people don't know this. A lot of people don't know the audio recording of the sex. Nope. Can't do that either. That's okay. These things are always recording. That is sexual exploitation. I know it's not a pop. I'm using it as an example. It's not a thing. They don't go after Google for recording the sex with the higher. I mean they should because it's sexual exploitation of a child. They should. This is actually pretty crazy that most people don't realize the average age of consent at the age of 16 in the United States. Yeah. 16. Yeah. They think it's 18. It's not. Oh, they don't. Well, a lot of people think it's 16 and then they get in trouble. I have a lot of these cases where they're like, oh, I had sex with a 17 year old. Oh, but I took a picture of her boobs and then there. I think. It's sexual exploitation. That is. So for a judge, you would want to argue, but it's legal to have sex with her, but I can't take pictures of her. You'd want to be able to argue. I know I got convicted of that. Oh, I have a ton of clients on it. A competitive shooter. Yeah, he's a, he was an older guy. He was in his 40s and somehow he was hooking up with really young girls. So it's gross anyway. I was like, oh, they're all in the same place. But he didn't get convicted for having sex with her.

1:04:26He got convicted because they took some pictures while they were doing it. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yep. What if she took pictures? Still a car. I'm like, if she took pictures of him, yeah. But she's the younger one. Yeah. So as long if he sends them to her, like she sends them if they transmit them, then enjoy. Wait. So 20 year old and 16 year old look up, 16 year old female takes pictures of it and then sends it to him. Yeah, he responds with this is how dare you. This is wrong. Don't do this. I'm going to report this to the police. He goes to jail possession of child pornography. Even though he reported it and saying this was sent to me. So in the federal system, if you reported immediately, you can have a defense. You still get charged, but you have a defense. But mostly courts, you don't have a defense. Anybody can text you anything at any point. Yeah. Yep. You got a defense. In the federal system. So I actually have had experts that went to see if my client downloaded it and how long they looked at the image because I've had clients that were sent stuff that are like, you know, like when it really happens is if you download porn, you know, you download 20 images and maybe one of them is an underage, but you didn't actually try to download

1:05:29it someone underage. If you delete it really quick, that's a defense and federal court, but it's not in state court. So this is why this comes up. What will happen is you'll have some people who collect child porn. They don't have one or two images. Yeah. Yeah. They have hard drives full of this stuff. And it'll be a pastor to church and he'll have a computer problem and someone will try to help them with the computer discover all the child porn. And the pastor will go, oh my God, I had no idea that was there. I'm insane. I was depleting sanity. Oh, I know. I was like, I got it. Someone just said it to me. Did you guys see the recent ruling that are artificial intelligence, AI generated images of children as legal so long as not real? What's going on? Have you followed that at all? I have. It's weird. I mean, I get it from the defense standpoint because the theory on child porn, why it's illegal is because the kids are harmed making it. So if kids aren't harmed, there's technically no harm. But as a society, we think it's gross. So it's not that uncommon actually. This is come up before AI because people would do drawings. Is that illegal? It varies from jurisdiction.

1:06:30So Ian brought this up and he had concerns that what is someone draws a picture. So what if one of the things that people do is they draw children but call them elves. And it's like very obvious that they're making preview-best and little girls but what's an elf. And you're put in front of a jury and ask them how they feel about it. So then it's like, okay, the challenge is, for me, I actually think it's pretty simple, like lock them up. Because we have moralities when we make these, we have moral lines for illegality. Like on the flock camera debate, some people are like, we have to allow flock cameras to defend the first amendment. My answer is no, we have moral lines on different subjects, different subjects. But the concern that people bring up is like, where is the line then? What if it's a clearly a child with a pig's head? Right, right. Is it then going to a constitute? For me, I'm kind of like, yep, I don't care. Stop playing games. We know what you're trying to do and why you're doing it. If it's AI, like it's, I mean, the law as it is right now, no, it's not going to be illegal. The problem with the AI law is that how do you then determine what is real and what isn't?

1:07:34I know. And how as a person, how do you comply with the law? I mean, the answer is just don't have child porn, whether it's real or not. But do you think that this will get overturned and they'll be like, no, you can't do it? No. Well, I think that they're going to, I think that it's, yes, I think they're not going to be allowed to criminalize AI porn. So to clarify, a judge ruled you can't criminalize without a real person. Yes. It's going, is that going to be appealed like is the prosecution? I think it will laugh. I think it'll stand. It'll stand. I bet that could criminalize it. It's just the state police power. They can say, hey, we allow these images to go out. Even if they're artificial, it just encourages pedos to be more interested in kids. Plus, like the likeness, I mean, you can have a photo of a kid on some mom's Instagram and then, you know, turn that into whatever. That's a big fear. I think it would turn into a picture of a real person. And that's so dangerous because that data could use for other things. This is why I think people should be criminalized for putting their kids on the internet.

1:08:34Yeah. That they're consent. Oh, yeah. And get it for their own social media cloud. It's just a slip of the slide. That should be a criminal offense. Patrick of Ohio as how do we, how do we so, so now we need to prove. The child is a person or not? I know. They already do. proof already. And it's a real person. You've had to prove for years that. Yeah. They've always had to prove that. They've proved the years and the age. So it's really crazy. They actually have known images and the hashtag data for it, and they can prove it. And here's the thing. When you talk about tail porn, everybody is like, this is disgusting. Nobody likes it. I mean, obviously, it's disgusting. We want to criminalize it. We want it to be bad. But then you think about what you were talking about. You make the creator. What if someone created it and they didn't know it was a child. I mean, there are certain defenses to it. Have you guys seen it? The analyzing data in general then is like a slippery slope towards criminalizing, you know, schematics for 3D printed guns. Which they've tried to do. Yeah. And that's super risky. Right. Have you guys seen that woman who's like in her late 20s, but she's got a genetic disorder that makes her look like she's seven years old? No.

1:09:35And she's like a TV show. And there's like a guy dating her and everyone's like, it's pretty messed up because, I mean, this woman is in her late 20s. She wants to have a family. But no matter who she's with, that person is like basically a bino. Okay. So let me ask you this. So what is worse to you that someone of age having sex with someone who looked like a seven year old or having sex with someone who is actually 13, but they look like they're 27. Oh. I feel like it's equal. Like the problem is I kind of, I sympathize with this poor woman. Right. Because she's dating a guy that everyone is calling a pedophile. And it's part of the show where it's like when he leans down and they kiss, people start yelling at him and like they get in trouble. But she'll relate to her age. And she has every right to live her life. Yeah. But I'm like, any, like with all due respect to this poor woman, any guy that wants to be in that relationship. Oh. The luckiest pedophile in the world, I guess. So another guy called has Bula that Michael Mike Tyson famously was recently. He thought he was a little kid.

1:10:35He's like in his 20s. I think a lot of it is the perception of youth that is criminalized because they don't really, like you said, if the woman's 16 or 15, but she looks like she's 23, no one's going to, I mean, they might, the legal team might use it as an opportunity to crush someone. But no one would even realize that it might be a crime to begin with. Right. Yeah, but nobody gets in trouble for that. No one gets in trouble because they have a picture of a cheerleader who happens to be 15 years old. The picture is these, I have friends in the FBI who work these cases. And the images, they're all kids. They're all obviously kids. They're awful. There's thousands of them. This is not some incidental someone has a, you know, on the edge kind of folks. You know, you know, you know, I have to say the term rape is so vague. There's, there's violent rape forcing sex against someone against their will. And then there's a guy's 20 and then the girl's 17. And it's not rape. It's a different word should be used. Statutory rape is too hot. Date rape is, yeah, it's don't even get me started because we don't have date rape in most states. Like it's, it's such a different offense. It needs a different word like, like stat, like we need to stop.

1:11:35Especially after me too, especially after me too. It's, it's insane. How many people are you know, just because of that. I'm wondering why we haven't seen like, actually, I'm sorry, no, we have seen some of these things where these like pido catchers get a wrong guy or a random guy. Yeah. There was one real risk. Yeah. I see those videos all the time. Of course. And they grabbed some dude. It's like, what have you got the wrong dude? Well, this happened. They were apparently this, the woman they were using. So this woman was running a count and stinging guys. Yeah. And she made a mistake on one of the accounts. She never said she was underage. So the young guy went to meet up with her, thought he was meeting someone of age. She then tells her team, no, look, I told them I was a minor. And they's like, that's not my account. Oh, because they're doing like a hundred at the same time. Yeah. And so the guy was like, here's the messages. She said she was older and our count says 21 or whatever. And then they, I think it ended up suing them and they ended up getting in trouble. Wow. That's a good way to get shot.

1:12:36Yeah. Right. If you grab the wrong guy and he sees three or four big dudes start shoving them around. Yeah. And they're like, they're like, they're like, they're walking to the store where the guy is supposed to meet the kid and they check beating the crap out of them. And then people are just saying they're watching it. And it's like, I get it. Long day. You know what I mean? But the, the, well, I mean, look, most of the time they're not the wrong dude. Yeah. I'm not going to advocate for it. Yeah. No, this is the time they're not. But if you're in public and you're beating a guy, you got to be careful. Someone's going to shoot you. Yeah. This is, this is what I was a, who was I was just talking to somebody about like criminal trials and, and I, and I said, imagine. And everybody knows, especially like you guys in criminal defense. Imagine there's two guys, you know, in a park and then one guy picks up a rock and chucks at the other guy's head and the guy dodges. Then the guy grabs another rock and says, I'm going to kill you. Then you walk up and see the victim draws gun and shoot and kill the other person. You just watched a guy shoot a guy, right? So you call the police and they say, what happened?

1:13:37Like that guy just shot that guy. And there's no witness to say actually the guy with the gun is like, he was, he was, he was threatening to murder me. He hit a rock in his hand and he was throwing them at me. But so people will come up and they will see after the fact. And they don't understand who's the aggressor actually. That's Kenosha and a nutshell. If we hadn't have been there, you know, I mean, people were, would have made the argument that he did just they claimed right now. He's killed three black guys. They still say, yeah, I don't get that all the time. Four flock cameras is the transparency of crime. But, but, but no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, the flock cameras are not filming every 24, seven. Many of them are like low frame rate, like nine frame, puts that in. The condors are video cameras. They could pick it up. But what's ethically do you guys think about condor, flock cameras? Oh, I hate them. I hate them, but I will say they have exonerated many people. But I hate the, I hate the surveillance, but in the criminal world, it's very helpful to have those. I mean, I've had, I used to do work for this company that had trucks this years ago. They, they would, it was like a, the gas company, you know, and they had the trucks that went

1:14:37around and fixed stuff and they would get an accident. But every time they got an accident, they would end up being sued. So they thought it was cheaper to hire me to go defend all of them. Well, they had dash cams. I will tell you not once did the dash cam match what the police found. So every single time the police would make a charge. They would charge someone with causing the accident. And every single time when I would pull the dash cam, it would say complete opposite. So they would believe whoever got in the accident, you know, the other person and disbelieve the commercial driver, the driver of the truck. And every single time the dash cam proved that my driver was innocent. I mean, they obviously have you. They can't exonerate people, right? They're capturing video, they'll capture video of the occasional crime. That'll help solve the crime. To me, it's a public policy question. I mean, we could put a cop up. Everyone's asked to, right? That would stop a lot of crime. The drone on me. We want to live that way. Yeah, like that's the problem. I don't want to live that way. Nobody does. Yeah, but it would have cop in every house, right? You got a cop living in your house. It's going to help stop crime. But nobody wants to live like that. You'd be shocked though. Now we're getting a lot of ring camera videos. Like it's, oh yeah, how many ring cameras? And I'll have one case and I'll have like five ring cameras

1:15:38because people will catch little bits and pieces of the arguments. It's very interesting. That's also the, along the argument of like some crime is good. Like some law is evil in like the Nazis, for instance. They made things legal that were evil. And then they would go and round up Jews and it was legal. So the crime would be the light of the authorities and say, I don't have Jews in my house. And then you save these people's lives. So there are instances where you need to let people get a rise up law to fix the system. Right. I mean, imagine how the cameras would have come down. If there was a million flaw cameras during COVID. Yeah, of course. In Britain, I heard. So these things all have utility. But the question is, you always have to think to yourself, if I'm going to create this tremendous power, right? And it's not just that it's a camera. It's that everything is recorded and networked and searchable. It's the scale changes everything, right? A bucket of water is one problem. A tsunami is a different problem, right? They're both water, but the scale is very different. If you're going to give this power to somebody, you have to ask yourself, all right, I'm not worried about giving it to that dude. I trust that dude. He's going to do the right thing with it. But he's not in the job forever.

1:16:39Is someone else gets the job? Someone else gets control. Not to change the subject, but the J6 pipe armor. We have the FBI released one minute of footage of like choppy black and white footage because the feds are in control of who sees the footage. So there are definitely thousands and thousands of images of this pipe armor walking around DC. And yet they get to control what everybody sees. Same thing with January 6th. So if the feds are in control of that of the cops, it's like, oh, but I trust them. I don't. Sorry. If this power was in the hands of my worst enemy, what could they do to me? Exactly. No, but the truth is if I had the power, I would be altruistic. Yeah, yes, beneficent. So don't disarm the camera. But definitely if you do destroy fly cameras here. I would love to give, if someone said, if like a being came to me and said, we're going to allow you to give one person supreme authority and ultimate power of earth. I'd be like, oh, Ian, hands down. Yeah, hands down.

1:17:39And then you take a bunch of meds and kill everybody. Oh, no, no. You got to build a better system. This is where I want the Chinese to do is set up a republic so they can go down in the Iranians too. Like they need a republic. They call it the people's republic of China and the Iranian republic, they need to actually make a republic and let go of the power. We're heading in the opposite. I hit that back. I wouldn't give you the power to give it to a dog or something. I don't want. Well, what we need to do is decentralize the authority somehow. But if you give everyone access to the flat, feel like there's this thing called like a constitution or something that we could, Rich, if you had, you ever said that movie with, what's his face? Ricky Jervais, I think. No, no, no, no, it's not Ricky Jervais. Who's the guy from Sean of the dead? Oh, I know. Simon Pegg. Yeah. You're talking about hot fuzz. He's also in that. You ever said the movie where he gets, he gets called absolutely anything I think it's called where he gets aliens give him reality warping powers. At the end, he gives it to his dog. Oh, yeah, he's like, oh, nobody should have this and he gives it to the dog. The dog is Robin Williams, I guess.

1:18:41Oh, am I the dog in this situation? No, I'm saying how many people would you kill if you had that power? Anybody who mess with you? You guys know what death note is? Yeah. I don't remember. The anime. I do. Yeah. Yeah. manga into anime, but that's how they all go. So high school kid finds a notebook. There's Grim Reapers in Japanese called Shinigami Death God. And one of them comes up, they each have a note. So death gods can write your name down and whatever life you had left, they get. So they live in this death god realm where they just write down people's names and write their cause of death. So this one, he's got two because, you know, happens to dance. He drops it to see what happens in the human world. High school kid finds it and he's like an honor student and he decides. He writes a guy's name down the guy dies as a holy crap. This is real. So he decides he's going to kill every criminal on earth, all from heart attacks so that everybody recognizes a pattern is emerged and that someone is killing everybody and that's an intentional act.

1:19:42What would you guys do with it? How did you know they're criminal though? See, now you're getting the philosophy of death note. This is because I can't watch this too much CNN. That's what he did. He would watch TV and pull up and he would watch TV and then see which network. So in the in the in the anime, you have to know what they look like and know their name and you have to you have to be thinking about that specific person that way don't accidentally kill people with different names. He then got access because it was a cop to police records and he would use that. But aside from that, if you don't know, but you could write on anybody's name and kill them. How many people would you kill? Oh my God, nobody. We used to kill a lot. What you've seen is I was like, he's like a lot. I got a long list. To the 13, 14, 1500s in Europe, they would every year, they'd kill one percent of their population. The worst psychopaths, you know, the Trump is in it actually. They would execute them. Trump is actually that's what contributed to the Western civilization being a high trust society. We killed off all the low trust people. So after death note's one of the most popular anime in manga of all time. Well, and then this was I think it is.

1:20:45Monkey Trump. So something like, I don't know, seven years after the end or maybe like 10 years after the end of death note, they did a one shot, which is like an epilogue where some kid finds the notebook. And then I'm sorry, I think I think a re-euk gives the kid the death note like, we're gonna do this again. But the kid's not stupid and he's like, I'm not gonna use this. I'm gonna sell it. So then he publicly announces the world somehow like the internet that it's for sale. It's actually really great writing. And then everyone's like stupid. There's no way you can collect the money. The moment they find out who has it, you're done. So what he does is he says, you know, Donald Trump offers like a trillion dollars for the death note so they can kill anybody they want. And he says deposit five million dollars into bank account of every Japanese citizen. And then I'll transfer the death note to you. So that way they can't figure out who the benefit she areas because he's like, everyone in Japan will get the same benefit as me, but we'll all be rich. And so then Trump buys it and Trump has the death. And then he kills everybody in Japan. I don't remember exactly what happened,

1:21:46but they don't call him Trump, but it's very obviously Trump. Yeah. Oh, it's clear. Yeah. To be fair to light, Yagami, he did kill a lot of convicted criminals too. Mostly they were convicted, but then he started just killing people accused that were on the team. Yeah. Yeah. He went overboard. It's kind of an argument for monarchy or feudal aristocracy. Like if you think about a family that's groomed to just care about the long term well-being of that nation, rather than changing of power every four years or whatever term. Now here's the other thing too. So long in the in the in the show. So long as their death is within the realm of physical possibility, you can direct how they die, however you want. So for example, if you say a guy in New York tomorrow will die in Los Angeles, that's impossible. So he'll have a heart attack. If the cause of death that has written cannot be carried out as written because it's physically impossible, they just have a heart attack. I want to albatross to carry him 600 yards out into the ocean. No, because an albatross can't lift a human. But what like does is he says, he says like the prison inmate

1:22:48stabs himself and then writes in his own blood on the wall and then dies and it happens. This is it. I don't like it because crime does not equal evil. There's so many criminals that and then that's not even the argument about some you wouldn't something shouldn't be illegal. Are made illegal not a single person. What's that? That's why we have a legal system. Yeah. But I mean like there are people who are evil. Yeah, I wouldn't who are going to kill like in self-defense. You wouldn't stop somebody like you wouldn't kill in. Well, if it was in self-defense, but I would be able to do that on the note. No, let's put this way. Like let me ask you, you're in a convenience store. Yeah. And you just have to be carrying your beautiful scar 20s and it's fully decked out 30 round mag. And a guy comes in and he puts a gun to the old lady clerk said and says, I'd kill him. And he pulled, he'd shoot him dead. 100%. Now what happens if you are across the street and you got your scar 20s fully decked out, you can hit him from there. You're going to do it, right? If I could do it from a car. Yeah, yeah. Perfect. Now you're on a rooftop, you know, 500 feet out. And you see the guy point the gun and pull the hammer back. And you got the scar 20s, they're fantastic.

1:23:49It's three, you know, three, oh wait, you take them out. Yes. Now you're watching on TV, a bank hostage situation. And there's a guy with a knife to the throat of a child and he's digging it in and you have the notebook. Oh, and they're like, John Smith right now is about to kill this child. Oh, at the same time. And you're watching on TV. Oh yeah, I do it then. And then you write like half of the fact. Or like abstract if it's actually right there and I can prevent it from happening. Yeah. But like you're watching on TV a thousand miles away and you have the notebook and you can do it then. So let's say that there's like a saving a life right there. Yeah, you're saving a life. That's the self. Right, it's at the same time. Where's the limit, you know, driving recklessly. What if someone's driving recklessly and you had a drone watching them and you can open fire on the car and you said, hold on, hold on, I don't want to do it. So I'm trying to go somewhere with this. I don't want to do it. So my next question was obviously international conflict for unfairs war, right? So you, we find out that strike is about to be carried out and somewhere, would you be like, I'm going to stop this and write the name of a foreign world leader or whatever.

1:24:50Yeah. Like Vladimir Putin's about to invade Ukraine. Because I would be saving lives. I think that's completely different. Or what if I were to have another about to bomb a school in Iran? Who's about to? The United States. Well, the United States. I mean, actually. So here's the, here's the, here's the, here's the, who's on my, who's on my death list? You don't know who's controlling the drone. You're going to stop, you know what I mean? But I'm saying you've got Putin declares, like we're sending troops into Eastern Ukraine. Would you write Putin down? Yeah. But what if he's going to kill them right then? Yeah. What if it triggers World War Three? You got to run a lot of names at that point. You know, just writing them down like crazy. It just never ends. Well, that's why I don't want that power, you know? That's the whole point. I need to know everything. I need to know exactly what, who I was killing and what the effects were from that. The right, the most. Stuff and kind of try to go down that road of killing all the bad guys. Yeah, it doesn't work. Doesn't work well. You know, I pretty quick year that bad guy. That's why I'm like, there's a fine line. So in your other examples, it was all immediate. It's like self-defense. Am I having to do it for self-defense right there? Yeah. But if I'm making a calculated decision, I'm going to kill these people to save the world. That's different. It's got to be immediate to me.

1:25:51It's just, when you get to that scale, you don't know the track is actually saving the world and you do this, you know? And I'm lucky that I'm not in that position so I don't have to make those choices, you know? Although technically, I think that because the window for the death note is 28 days, you could write every world leader's name, all come together, go on TV and declare world peace. Because you can control their actions before they die, you'd have to sacrifice them to have them all come together and assign a treaty of world peace. And then they have to die if they sign that treaty? Could they list? Well, in order to control their actions, they have to die. You can control their actions of four deaths. What you do is you make the point of death, martyrdom, from like choose your evil, global, you know, terror group, and then all the world leaders came together and then this one terror group kills them. And then you have the whole world united against one terror group and then you get world peace. How long has that world peace been to last? I know. Deep. Yeah. And what's the other fallouts from my actions? We're fired at this point. So what's the, I'm picking and choosing like, what we need to know, but that changes human behavior? What's the, what's the story of the,

1:26:54it's like Plato and Saccharitis or whatever, that if you were invisible, that all people, what, do you know what I'm talking about? Like this, how people would treat you if you were in, no, no, no, that all people, when given the ability to commit crimes without accountability will do so. Let me look that up. What is that called? Yeah. I know the theory you're talking about. There's a name for it. I think people don't realize how often, ring of Gaigus crimes, and they don't even know it. The story of the ring of Gaigus, it's from a Plato, and he argues that someone finds a ring that grants them invisibility. And when they, let's see, the legend is Gaigus of Lydia, blah, blah, blah, it grants, using the ring as an example, this section of their public considers whether a rational, intelligent person, who has no need to fear negative consequences for committing an injustice, would nevertheless act justly. And, you know, what do you guys think? If you were given a ring of invisibility, would you wrong anybody for any reason, no matter how minor?

1:27:54No. You wouldn't, you wouldn't walk into a casino and just take $1,000 chip? What's gone? No, I don't even want to win the lottery. Like I want to build it from scratch. So I don't think I would do that. And I know a lot of people would... I don't think you would snatch all the 25,000 chips. We all have the opportunity. We can all commit crimes all day long in that regard. Yes, yes, but the point about the ring is that most people don't, the argument is that you and upstanding citizen when given a ring of invisibility would commit crimes you otherwise would not because you can't get caught. I would go to like the best waves in the world and just drop in on everybody and surf whatever way I wanted. That's the only crime out. It's the only crime out, because no one would know that I was dropping in on them. That's the crime out commit, because then I can surf whatever way I want. And they don't have to say, hey, you dropped in on them. So like environmental crimes? Yeah, I got to, I got to, I got to pipeline crimes have been convenience. Yeah, yeah. You wouldn't just want to go to a casino. So in all reality, if you took high value chips from a poke from a casino, you're never cashing those in. It's impossible. The moment you walk in with them,

1:28:55they're like, where'd you get these? Like it's not, like they track all of the high, most people are not playing with $1,000 chips. So casinos, that's why that dude in Vegas, who snatched all of the chips and then fled, got caught because you can't use them. Yeah, when it, how? They're gonna track everything. You track everything you do. There's no reality where you can even buy them. So if somebody went to a, so this is a blog, I think it was a blogio. He ran in a motorcycle helmet, ran in, grabbed a bunch of chips and ran out. If you're like a mafia also, you can't do anything with them. Because when you buy 100K in chips with 25,000 chips, they write your name down, take a picture of you and say, you have four. I had this book when I was little and in the book, it was like a children's book, but they got this cube when they could wish for anything and it would appear. And then they found out halfway through the book that it was coming from somewhere else. It was being taken from someone else. So no matter how much you want and how much you desire, it's someone else, it's coming from somewhere.

1:29:55Yeah, you've got to have a moral code. Like most, I mean, most crimes aren't caught. Most people commit crimes and it's not caught. We just don't commit them because we have a moral compass. We have a moral code. I guess that's the question. Yeah. And like you have. And Jay walked more if I had an invisible ring. Well, so how about this? If you had telekinesis, would you cheat at a casino? No. I'd really like you. I play roulette. You put the max bet 200 bucks on 26. And then you're like, whoop. Because I do try and do that. And if I have 100 bucks, the force, you are 7,000. I think you, I think that she tries to use that. I do it anyway. What do you mean? I'm actively trying to do that. I ask, I ask the roulette dealers, is it is using magic cheating? Anyhow. If I have, if I have, if I have, if I have, Then you get flagged and they follow you around. No, if I said that, I said, if I use magic to make the ball end where I want is that cheating, they just laugh. And I'm like, how about the telekinesis device? Yeah, you're a profile. Oh, that would be great. But because I know your head's gonna end up on wood vise. They will, they will kick you off any game if you're winning. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. You can't win it at a casino.

1:30:56Let me explain everyone. You can't win it at a casino because they won't let you. If you ever actually run on a heater and winning a lot of money, they will tell you to stop no matter what the game is. Yeah, you're shut down. Yeah. That's crazy. Yeah, but polymarket is awesome. Polymarket. Have you seen the polymarket on Lindsey Clancy? No, no. That's what I was being sarcastic. Oh man, how much money they make. The thing is though, prediction markets, is you don't wait for the end. You can cash out before. So the only thing you really need to know about a prediction market is will press occur in your favor. I wonder if there was a prediction market for the hung jury. I bet you there is. Like, like, well, that's basically, basically, that's, that's, um, did you see George Santos got banned? Because, yep, because he, because it was whether or not he would appear at the state of the union. Like, why are, why are we doing this? We, do we really need to make betting markets on everything? I think it's, I think it's the train, it's the train AI. So that our, there's overlords are actually the ones engineering. There was a, there was a prediction market on it. Figure out how there was the activity for the end. All right. Yeah. Yeah. So there's one for me.

1:31:56That's, that's why I'm looking at you because you're probably the only person who buys it on it. It's true. Oh my gosh. That's the DARPA. It's crazy. We can get more pass on the outcome of the Atlantic Atlantic. Don't drown in the world and then and see how people react to predictions. Yep. I mean, I think we bet because it's fun to bet. And it's, but I got one for you. It's a sec. Also like desperate time. Who will attend a White House press briefing this year? Currently, I'm number one. You are really? Oh, wow. 88,000 wage and I'm very big. But the reason, I don't, when I found out that they made a prediction market based on me, that's, I'm kind of offended by that. I really know. I'll pop a bet in there. See that? That's right. I already publicly announced on the show and you can see exactly when I said on this show, I am talking, I was talking to Lisa and I said, a lot of them know I want to, I want to come to a press briefing. I don't care which one. And they said, well, care a little bit's out. So we'll let you know, like as soon as we do, they're like, they're like, Tim, you can come whenever you want. Just use some of this message. We'll walk in. So I said, I do intend to go. But I have questions. I have, I have questions. So what does it mean to attend a press briefing?

1:32:58What constitutes proof? Let's see, resolves yes, if Tim pull attends any White House press briefing, which takes place in the James S. Brady press briefing room after A.S.U. and said before, 2027. So does that mean I have to be in the room? Is it attending a press briefing if I'm just outside the room, watching and filming, but I don't open the door? You got to be in there. Yeah, it takes a lot of time. What if it's in the oval, because obviously, you know, I don't have to be in the room. Press briefing has. It says it says in the press briefing, what if I take a picture of myself outside the room saying, heading to the press briefing today, I'm here, but I never actually go in. What if I put on a, I have a White House press pass. What if I put on a beanie and a cool mask? Yeah, and I'm asked, you literally just wear my clothes. And I'm just like, yeah, I'm done. So here's the, here's the point. It resolves to yes, as long as any news agency or I claim I was there, whether or not I actually was. So I've thought of a couple scenarios. What if I take a picture outside, and I'm like, at the White House press briefing today,

1:33:59people are gonna say that proves he was there, he took a picture outside, right? What if I never actually go in? How about this? What if I say I'm going, but I don't, I don't post a picture. I say, I will be at the White House press briefing today. And then no one sees me on January 1st. I post the photo saying, yeah, I was there. I said it was there. So the issue is, Cal she says, even if I was there, unless it's confirmed before the end of the day, it doesn't matter if I was. So let's say I go and say nothing. And then next March, I post that I was there, like, done matter. It had to have been proven before the closure. But what if I tweet, just text, I am currently here. And you're wearing a Berka and nobody? No, no, no, no, no, no, I just, I'm here. So no one actually sees any photos or evidence. Like, what if I tweeted right now, from the studio in West Virginia, I am at the White House press briefing? There needs to be something in that that says what it takes to prove it. My understanding is that if I go live from the studio, and I point the camera, I put the screen, I say, I am about to tweet right now

1:34:59that I'm actually the White House press briefing. And then I do, that will count as me having them. Wow. This is like the invasion event as well. I wasn't a bunch of people are mad because it didn't count as an invasion. Yeah, they're like, we put boots on the ground and that was an invasion. There's gotta be some fine print on all these. Some lawyers drafting some fine print. I read this contract and I'm like, yeah. This is gonna get wonky. It's just stupid. It'll end up in litigation. Why do we need to bet on that? Yeah, here's, here's, here's, cause we're training the AI. They get their big, they're way right. No, but, but, exactly they're making money. Here's the problem. I was at a press briefing last year. What if I take a picture from it? Last year, post it right now and say, attend it, just attend it, or having attended this recent press briefing was absolutely incredible. I'm glad I get to go to the White House and see these things. It's ambiguous that I actually go. I said I did, but I never really said I went now. So they're gonna be fighting like crazy. Like, does this, did he go? I don't understand like he said he did. All those are gonna say, the people who bet, no, we're gonna be like, no, he did. That's an old photo. That's not old. That's him there now.

1:36:00I want my money. No, you can't have your money. It's insane. And then, so that's the, that's the craziest scenario. If I take the picture from last year, that no one's ever seen before. Yeah. And post it now and say, really excited to have attended the press briefing, learned so much. There needs to be a Calhsi certifier, like a team of elite people in Calhsi that are just all around the world at all times. What are the odds of that? Here's what I'm gonna do. Here's what I'm gonna do right now. Let's bet on it. Let's bet on it. I am going to put on the exact same clothes that I wore last year when I went. I'm going to go take a picture in the back of myself that I'm gonna tweet a tiny of the press briefing was really incredible. It was so amazing to see. I'll never, and then I'll write, I'll never forget how amazing Carolyn Levit was when she was doing the press briefings. So it's very ambiguous. 2026 has been such a good year. Make that a big difference. Oh my gosh. The reason why it's ambiguous is that I want it to be, maybe it was 2025.

1:37:02Maybe he's saying he's there now. Everyone will start fighting over whether I did or did not go. And then how will they be able to determine it? Now here's the best part. If they can't determine based on me literally posting, I went to the press briefing because it may be the year before and they don't pay out. And then on January 1st, I just tweet, here's the other photos when I was there at JD Vance's press briefing. I said I was there, why wasn't that good enough? It's insane. The point of bringing up is this. We had a guy in New York, wager on the temperature of New York, bring a blow dryer and blast sensor so that it would guarantee to hit any make money. People are betting that I will or will not be there and I did not agree they could do that. Yeah. So if I do this, everyone's going to be fighting over whether I was there or not. Calci will have to make a determination as to whether or not it's proof that I was there. What if I wasn't? What if Calci was there? And I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, that was just me saying from last year. I never, I did not go. What did the secret service guy see you at the checkpoint

1:38:03and then makes the bet? Is that like insider trading? That's not allowed. It is allowed. So it's not insider trading because I'm in public. What if I go to a restaurant across the street at cafe and I say, everybody in the building right now, there is a prediction market wager on me to attend a press where they think, oh my God. I'm about to walk across the street and enter that building right now do with that information what you will. What if there's a prediction's market on Lindsey Clancy and I'm her lawyer? Can I bet on it? Yeah, that's insider trading. So that's insider trading. I can't. That's not the same thing about this. That's a higher trading. And any of my employees cannot make a by a contracts on the my attendance. Yeah, but I'm not that clean employee. I'm a contractor. That's it that matters. It does matter. You're playing a stupid semantic game. That's clearly fine. I don't know. I've got. So what just I have my own company. I work with Tim Kast from time to time. I have a contract with Tim Kast. Okay. Is that still illegal? Yes. It's about my brother. It's a violation of the CFTC and it's explicitly against the rules. I know you are giving some ethics. What about my brother though? Your brother doesn't work.

1:39:04He doesn't have any. Your brother is clean. I'm going to go hang out. What if he tells his brother? And then I see that beanie walking up. Well, it's already at 71. So you're like, I got to be honest like, well, then I'll just put everything I got on there. If you like, if you look on here, it's implicating you and say, yeah, it's no good. You bet a thousand bucks on him. All right, how about this? I see you coming with your beanie and I tackle you. And then I bet no. And ensure that you're not breaking like you can't go back in there. What if you put on my clothes? Who? And I put on your clothes. You then go in and shake the hand of some journals. Like I did, Tim Poole, nice to meet you. And then they report Tim Poole is here. What if you leave the change your name to Tim Poole? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me finish. I'll part of it. So they say Tim Poole is here, because I don't know who you are. And they're like, oh, wow, it's Tim Poole. Or someone looks back and then they tweet it. I'm outside. And then everyone starts tweeting Tim Poole's the press briefing. It resolves to yes, Tim Poole attended. I then immediately go live outside and say, that's not me. I'm not in there right now. Who is this? But it already paid out.

1:40:05I think the question that we're really driving at here is what is Tim Poole? You're right. My point ultimately is this. It doesn't matter what's true. These things are predicated upon nothing almost. And what's going to happen is everyone's going to go to war over what really happened because they want money. I think there's some precedent over you being able to sue Kalshi for putting your name on their server and promoting you and using you for their tools. Like people have a right to not be to script, not to be, maybe they don't have a right to not be like, objectified and used for like malfeasant purposes. And if they're playing games with you to make money and they're using you, that doesn't, that sounds right. Like who decides these? I will say this. We have a, Kalshi sponsors the show from time to time. So we do have a, a sponsorship from Kalshi that has never stopped me from saying these things and they've never had an issue with it. I respect that. But I have a question for the lawyers. I mean, what is the legality of them selling contracts in my name? About whether or not I will or we're not do something. Who comes up with that?

1:41:05Yes, but like they're, they're using my name and likeness to sell a contract. Do they have a right to use my name and likeness on contract sales? I think they have a right to do that. My concern would be how you can't profit off of it, obviously, you know, like you said, like you obviously can't profit off it because you could manipulate the outcome. But I'll, I argue, so they, they've said that it's a violation of the CFTC inside it. But we'll hold on. I am not party to this contract sale. Right. I have nothing to do with it. You want to sell a contract on my name. I can do whatever I want. You can't tell me what I can or can't do. Yeah, you're not a party to it. So I take, I take a lot of issue with this because they've told me I cannot participate nor anyone, anyone my family or her works for me in the sale of a contract as to my own actions. I have nothing of this company. I did not approve this. I never signed anything saying they could do it. Yeah. Because if you tell me you're going and then I tell my brother you're going and he bets a shitload of money and makes a ton of money. Yeah. There's a little bit of that.

1:42:05Let me ask. How is it even regulated? Like, where's this incorporated? Is it in a state? Cal, she's all of the country. It's banned in some states. But here's a question for you guys. So, so if they're allowed to post a picture of me with my name saying you can buy a Tim Poole contract, why can't I do that for LeBron? Why can't I sell pictures of LeBron and call them LeBron contracts and charge people $100 per contract? But what would you be saying about LeBron? He's going to go somewhere? Well, you get a physical contract with this picture on it. And it's a rare photo that he sells, but it doesn't matter because they're using my photo without my consent. And it's a contract that he'll eat a banana, at least one banana pudding this year. I think they can use your photo. It's the out. You can sell my photo. So, I'm not selling your photo. Does that count contracts in my name? They're not selling your photo. They license those photos? Yeah, that's what copyrighted. I think that's a lawyer's case. I'm ready to sell it. I'm ready to sell it. Yeah. You see this becoming a lawsuit. But I think more about how the payout is. Like someone's going to bet

1:43:06and then there's going to be a photo and they're going to be disputing real and what's not real. I'm going to go and say this. It's an $88,000 pool. I am a small fry in the world of Calche, but AOC is currently sitting on a $200 million pool. Now, hold on. She's a public figure. That's different. So, you're allowed to use the images of Trump or Trump's name because of public figure. But there are many people in this who are not. And I do not see how it is legal to create an industry that sells contracts using celebrity names when the business of the celebrity is their name and likeness. Well, the contract's a bet. I mean, that's what they're selling. They're selling a bet. Indeed. And you're not a party to it. And they're making money off of it. Yeah. Right. Soon as he reads it, he becomes a party to it. As soon as he sees that it's real, he's now a party to the... But he's not benefiting from it. Like he's not part... He's not one of the sides of the contract. He didn't make the contract. He's not benefiting from it. I just... I'm knowing that his actions are going to determine

1:44:07who gets money and who does it. That's not what I'm talking about. Talking about... Can I sell a product using Robert Downey Jr's name? Yes or no? There's a man with the product is... I'm going to sell you a piece of paper that has Robert Downey Jr. the actor with a picture of him on it. And you can buy that out for $20. They're selling the opportunity costs. They're selling a bet. You buy an actual contract with my name on it. It's a... It actually gives like a picture. You can actually pull up the contract in what it says. There's no picture on it though. So I'm quite... Hold on. I know I'm curious. If I post it Robert Downey Jr's picture and then under it it said, buy this contract that says Robert Downey Jr. And it's underneath the picture of Robert Downey Jr. I can do that. You have... So for a contract to exist, there's got to be something on the other side. You've got to actually get some consideration. So what am I getting if a person buys the contract? The Robert Downey Jr. contract. What do they get? If Robert Downey Jr. eats a banana split by the end of the year, I will send you a second picture of his name. Yeah, because you're not selling Robert Downey Jr. You're selling a bet on whether he does something. So, but you're getting a piece of paper

1:45:07with his name on it to hang up. So... You're getting the contract itself. Are you buying that piece of paper? Are you buying the chance to win more money if you win the bet? I suppose the question is, why would it matter? What if you write a magazine article about Robert Downey Jr. He uses a picture of him and then you sell the magazine? Yeah. If I want... I want to... If on my website, I wrote an article, Timkest.com, with a picture of Robert Downey Jr. framed those images of him and put a quote from my article. I can do that. You can't sell his image like that. What's a newspaper article? It's mine. It's called Fair Use, though. Yeah, I was gonna say, where'd you get the picture? Take a piece of... I'll go and find a... That's not fair use because the product itself is the... If you're making commentary, that's fair use. So, if... That's the product that you're selling is my commentary on this. If what you're selling is the piece, their likeness, and that's the basis upon what you're selling it, then that's not the same. So, I'm gonna take this picture, right? Good. I like that one. Because it's on Wikipedia, so it's in the Creative Commons,

1:46:09or it's in the public domain. It might be Creative Commons, but let's just say, hypothetically, it's in the public domain. Click in and find out. I mean, you can put it in there in more details. It'll tell you. This is probably Creative Commons non-commercial. It's got an author, and if it is Creative Commons non-commercial, then you can't use it. Sometimes they say you can use it. You are free to share a mixed-tribute share alike. It's all of the rights warning. Some rights, yeah. Free-to-license public domain. So, oh, it says public domain? Yeah. They've retained some rights itself. Although this work is really licensed or in the public domain. Right. It says some rights rights. But my point is this, there are photos in the public domain. I can sell the photo. If it's in the public domain. Yeah. You can put it in your book. Yeah. You can put it in a book and sell the book. I just think that there's an issue. Are you adding value or are you doing commentary or are you doing all those fair use things? My issue with this is, they are monetizing my work without my permission.

1:47:11Are they though? Are they monetizing your work? They're monetizing your image? No, no. Will I attend a White House press briefing this year? So they are telling people based on that work Tim Poole does, if certain conditions are met, we get a profit off of it. And you can buy a product from us. But it's not really your work. It's a chance of the work happening. Yeah. Well, no, no, no, it's something different. This is my work. Whether I cover a story or not is a question of the work that I do. Coverage is the work. So what they are doing is, I'm not the work. Tim Poole does stuff. And we are selling. They're selling yes and no. So you can buy no. Tim Poole won't go to the White House. Sure. But you're still buying odds. They're not buying your work product. They are they are profiting off of the work that I do. That you did it. Yeah, but people are profiting off the work you do when they talk about you. Yeah, they can take your video and you can comment there. Or someone can go on your money off that on YouTube. Outside and be like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Tim Poole and then it goes viral. But when people do that, I can take that video and I can use it. Right. But you can use it. I can use this to. You're using this to try to find the work. I cannot engage in this the way I can with it.

1:48:12Right. But you are using this. You're actually using their content right now, right? No, no, no. I am not selling contracts on whether or not, okay, here's what we can do. So I can make a contract that says, will CalShi pay out yes on Tim Poole attending the White House press briefing? I guess you could. I would prevent that. Then I, okay, I'm doing that. Let me kind of find, you should do that. That's actually really good. Let's do it right now. Yeah, you should do it. Do it in real time. What are the rules on an individual cell event contracts? Oh, the problem with the contracts like that are the betting and gambling rules. We are heavily ready. You need to be licensed. Yeah, I call Polymarket and I'm like, hey, you gotta be licensed. And that is a lot of contract. Will CalShi pay out yes on Tim Poole attending the White House press briefing? And then I can sell those and be like, it's not a, it's not inside a trading. How do you, I don't know what the end of doing, but I am gonna go. If I were to quit my job, liquidate all my Bitcoin and then just hang out for the next whatever, three months, four months outside of exactly where you have to enter to get into the White House with a bunch of big dudes just to ensure you don't go in there and bet no. The pool isn't big enough. The pool isn't big enough.

1:49:13What do you mean? You can't make any money. If you bet $10 million, you'll get paid out $2,000. Oh no. I'm betting no. You're saying, could you bet $2 million? I'm not allowing you to enter. I'm going to fill you. Keep you from entering. So is that insider trading? If you bet $5 million, you'll get paid out $53,000. They had a lawsuit ever. What? Yes, it's this place. They're saying betting on that. There's no money in the pool. That's the point. So you're, you're blow out the odds if you add. Yes. But if I put a lot more money in the pool, then doesn't it go up? So let's, I'm gonna try to, let's say, $350, it's only $80. Yeah, look, $350 pays $845. No, no, it becomes a favorite. How she has good lawyers? The question is like, if you can bet no and then ensure that it doesn't. What I don't like, exactly. What I don't like is that they're selling contracts in my name, barring me from participation through threat of criminal enforcement. I never agreed they could make wages in my name. I'm not party to those wages.

1:50:14I've, I'm not benefiting from them. Why can't I buy something? So, so man, let's, let's try this. Someone selling pictures of LeBron James from the public domain and LeBron says, I would like to buy one and say, you're not allowed. You legally don't look at me. You'll go to prison if you buy that. That seems insane to me. I don't like this. Yeah, George Santos agrees. Yeah. Well, I mean, I, yes, George Santos, the, the, the bet was whether he'd attend the state of the union. What'd he do? He bet no. It's less about pictures. More about selling will LeBron win the next game. And he can bet on that. But that's because he's part of an organization that has agreed to these rules and is, is a prize to them. So if you're a boxer and you agree to throw the match so that someone can win money, that I understand is criminal. But if you made this wager outside of me with no permission from me or questions or anything, I can do whatever I want. You have no right. Oh, there's a ton of lawsuits on this right now. Really? Yeah. Using people's names and likenesses about Calche and yeah, essentially who governs them?

1:51:16If it's what you said, the FTC or. Right. They're arguing that they've argued that if I were to buy on myself for this, now they've, it's banned. But let's say, you know, I told Richie, like, hey, I'm going to go buy that. We'll split the money. That's a criminal element that's under the C.M. Let me know. Let me know. Yeah. With the profits. Right. No, no, no, but, but they're arguing they would refer it as a criminal action. Yeah, like you know, like the reporting is that Santos is being criminally investigated. I understand. But sure, but if it's criminal, it's not their rule being enforced, right? Some legislator created a rule. Yeah, this is the point. What gives, how could there be a system created that creates criminal culpability for me without my permission based on actions I would take? I don't think they could ever. I don't. So I would defend you to that. It's like, it's like a law being passed saying, specifically, Andrew Branca can't buy a hot dog from the store otherwise, you go to jail. Right. Like that's ridiculous. No, that's ridiculous. That's ridiculous. Are you text me, you say I'm coming to DC? I say, let me know next time you're in DC.

1:52:16Hey, I'm coming to DC for the press briefing. Boom, I bet on it. Make a bunch of money. And then I go, Hey, Tim, come on. I got a vacation for you. There's no, you know, that is that. So that's illegal. Is that a? They decided to sell a contract in my name. And if I decide to buy on it, yes or no, I've committed a crime. That's the argument. But if Richie buys on it, it's not. And then I take you on. No, that's still. It's going to be just like a skate park. That's still a crime. Why? So see if it's inside or trading. If you tell me what you're using as an issue, this is the issue that I do not like with this. If I tell you, hey, I'm heading to press briefing. And then you have inside information as to my actions. And if you buy on it, that's inside or trading. And it's a crime. But I'm not a trader. Doesn't mean you think we're done. And this is a regulated argument. Why am I beholden to that? What if Bill Gates came to you and said, yeah, the stock's going to tank. And then you sold all your stock. It says I was trading. I would never invest in Bill Gates. But this is my point. They've created a weird inside or trading. Really have. This is crazy. On the fly. And here's the crazy thing.

1:53:17What if I tell Ian, I'm going to the press briefing. He's, he happened, Richie happens to overhear it and then buys it. It's just temple and give me any information. I heard it from Ian. Then they say, well, but we know your friends. So we're going to argue that he informed you. And then I have to defend myself against someone that I know buying this. It's insane. This is absolute insanity. It is crazy. I understand. It's crazy. I understand if you are a corporate officer and your wife sells all our stock. And you're like, I never said anything to her and they're investigating you. But I don't work for Colchee. I never agreed to let him do this. How could it be possible that Richie has criminal culpability now if he happens to guess right or or Santos for that matter? Let's do it and then take it to this pretty. So yeah, if you get charged with that, I'm your girl. I'm your defense lawyer, right? I'm not. I've actually asked, I asked a long time ago, why don't we get certain gun restrictions like the machine gun stuff overturned? Yeah. I think I see you actually. And it's because nobody wants to get arrested buying a machine gun to then be the president.

1:54:21Right. It's in your federal felony. Yeah, you got to prison for 10 years. Maybe you win, but nobody wants to go to prison on a gun charge. Right. Yeah. And the courts won't do with something that's hypothetical. You can't challenge something that's hypothetical. What are some of the court cases up against Colchee? So what? So most it's state. It's a lot of states that are having a problem because the federal government's allowing it and the states want to regulate it because the state's super regulate gambling activities like super, it's lucrative, you know? So there's a couple different states that are suing over that. It's interesting. Interesting. Yeah, that's the interesting part. I will say this. I like Colchee generally. I think it's fun. I think it's fun to track how people are putting money on contracts. It's the wisdom of the crowd. I think it's informative. I think it's better than polls. I gripe is this one particular issue with what responsibilities do I have when they chose to put my name in there without my permission? Mm-hmm. If you... Maryland does not like Colchee.

1:55:21Let me tell you that. Maryland definitely does not like Colchee. Nevada and New Jersey, that's interesting. There are two of the ones that sued. New Jersey because they had like the most losses. Like everybody's losing money. That's what I'm thinking. So it makes sense if you think Nevada and New Jersey, you got Atlantic City and you've got, that's mine. Yeah, there you go. What do they have in Maryland? They have Ocean City. Does that gambling, Ocean City? Ocean City, Maryland, I don't know. That gambling? No gambling. I has Maryland care. Maryland does have... Because Maryland has... Or five casinos. That's why then. So those are the three states that are really into it. It's all mine. Let's grab some of the questions. Interesting. From the members. Settle down and says question for Tim. Colchee had to sue the government just to let Americans bet on elections and you won. Why is DC so scared to let us bet on politics when Wall Street can bet on litter-living else? I find that most of these things, you find a lot of this stuff, there's no reason. It's just, it's the way it's always been and it's hard to make things move. Like so, what I'm dealing with in West Virginia is why is poker, social poker, not casino

1:56:21poker illegal? So if me and a boy's want to play a game of Texas Hold'em, amongst ourselves, there's no house. Why is that illegal? Pokemon is legal. So children can get Pokemon decks, wage your money. They can put money in a pot. Play a game in the winter gets the money. That's legal. Despite the fact the loss is it's illegal. Well it's because this is how things are done and to make these changes you have to tell someone it has to be changed. So. I can say why DC doesn't like it. It's because it's too easy to manipulate these things. You can set up one of these contracts, two politicians are running against each other for office, small numbers like 80 grand, like you have in your thing here and one of the parties dumps $3 million into it. Yeah. Now it makes it look like they're, they're candidates overwhelmingly favorite and perception becomes reality. People say, well I'm not going to send that guy money, he's going to lose. Cal she says so. Yep. Indeed. If you guys want to get some questions in for the last few minutes of this year, amazing show. I want a bunch of money from 2016. Oh yeah.

1:57:21That would have been illegal. That was, that was predicted back in the day, remember that? I just bet with my buddies who were all like, there's no chance and I was like really give me your odds. Wow. Predicted was the coin. Was the original I think. And as what's fascinating is that despite being one of the originals, it's basically nonexistent as far as polymarket and Cal she own everything. Yep. We got this from Kevin. He says, how long do you think Clancy would stay in the mental hospital if found not guilty? Messages only require six months and she hasn't had an episode since the murder. I think she'd be out within a year. And I think it's a good legitimate question because look, she was only ever a threat to herself and her kids. Well, her kids are safe now, right? I mean, they're gone. And all she has to do is convince somebody that she's not going to kill herself anymore. She's not feeling like that. I didn't realize that. She didn't feel suicidal and not feel suicidal. It's crazy. She's got to convince two state doctors and she's got to convince. There's no mandatory duration that she has to stay in there. No, six months for observation. This insanity thing's got to go. But hold on, hold on. So, Andrea Yates has been in under an insanity, same facts almost essentially for 20 years.

1:58:25But she's saying she's a danger to herself. Right. She hasn't found herself. Right. So, the question is if she doesn't want to be there anymore, how hard is it for her to get out? All she has to do is say, I'm just, I don't feel suicidal anymore. Yeah. I don't feel like she would get out though. I mean, honestly, the likelihood, but it's possible. That's the problem. I think it sounds stupid. Sounds like somebody's going to game this thing. But I don't think a judge is ever going to let her. I have the best question ever. Uh-oh. Okay. You both have seen better calls, so. Yeah. Of course. Oh, God. Oh, my. Overall, can you give us a ruling on how realistic the courtroom parts are in the show? It's not that realistic. I mean, some of the lifestyle stuff, when he's doing the hearing, I think this might have been an arbitration with his brother and he hides the battery at the cell phone battery. Oh, my God. Do you remember that one? No. But his older brother had a phobia of electricity. Oh. So, he's like anything electronic and he's like, there's a phone in your pocket. Yes. And then he opens it and there's no battery and he's like, I knew it. And then he's like, actually, and they hit the battery in his pocket. It's like, I mean, that stuff is, yeah, that doesn't really happen.

1:59:27But I will tell you, court is kind of wild. I think like the lower level courts, I don't know if you guys ever watched Night Court years ago. Even like you remember Night Court? Like years ago, you can watch old episodes of it. That stuff happens in the lower level courts. It's crazy. It was like the people that would come in in the middle of the night. Yeah, the pro-say. It's like the drumtings, you know, pro-say people overnight, people who are arrested on petty crimes and stuff. People who are drunk. Is it like lawyers laughing about it, like to each other during the trial? It's like, I think, it's like comedy because you're like drunk people. My cousin Vinnie is the most accurate legal movie ever made. It's taught in law school, isn't it? Oh, yeah, it is. The cross-examination, but I will tell you the most accurate ever is the practice. It's old. The practice. Not law and order? No. Oh, God! I can't even watch it and unnerve me so much. Like, oh, the practice. Have you ever seen, what didn't they do? I think there was a single season of law and order trial by... Yes. And it was like, it was mostly the court proceedings and less of the, but it got canceled because it was boring.

2:00:27It was stupid because, like, you don't get breaks like that. It was so wonderful. It was like, they go to court for an hour and then they get six hours to prepare. No! Like, I'm in court for nine hours straight. I mean... No, nothing, too. Like, if I get a granola bar. Even in law and order. They, these, when they show the court case. Yeah. I don't think people notice that when the actual, they actually, in the show, will mention it's six months later. Oh, yeah. In the next scene change. They're like, this was not... No. They came back and it was like six months later they came back. No. And those cases don't happen. I mean, that's not... Those crimes don't happen. Well, actually, the writing for law and order is based on real crimes. Right. So, not the... No, I guarantee not the SVU. There is no way. No, no, no, no, no. I was like, no, I'm thinking of the SVU. Oh, the regular law and order I loved, but the SVU. Oh, OG law and order. OG law and order was awesome. There wasn't SVU that was based on a real case. It made like one. And... But it blew my mind because I knew the case. It was out of Illinois. It was a woman who worked at... Oh, hair airport. Mm-hmm. And I can't remember exactly what it was. Like a body was found in a trunk or something. But I'm watching this episode of... I think it's SVU and I'm like...

2:01:28Ooh, you record... What is this? It's like, how do I already know what's gonna happen? And I'm so confused and I'm like, now the lady's gonna run away. I'm like, they're gonna find the car. There's the... That's crazy. What's going on? And then I was like, oh my God, this is a famous case. They made a TV show out of it. Oh my God. So what they like to do, the reason... The secret to law and order wise been in the air so long, is that they just look through court records for interesting cases. That makes sense for the regular... For the OG one. The OG one was great. But SVU is like, everyone's being raped all the time. All the time. And there's like 17 people are being raped and it's just crazy. And then they're being tortured while they're being raped. And I'm like, it doesn't happen. And stable is beating them up in the... It's like how it doesn't happen. In the interrogation room or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. All right. But, you know, they're fun shows. Hey, what? I got a... I haven't seen... Was it my cousin Vinnie? Yeah, the movie. I haven't seen it for so long. It's a good movie. Yeah, it was a good movie. They do play that. Is it the one where like the Jersey hooker lady... Yeah, it's the same thing. Yeah. Whatever. Oh, Pesci. Yeah. No, no, no. Like there's a woman on the stand. Yeah, Marissa Tomey.

2:02:28Marissa Tomey. Yeah, and she's like... She had a perm, right? She would never get a perm. Oh, no, that's... That's a legally blonde. Oh, legally blonde. That's legally blonde. I mix up my... You know, because... Also very realistic. Very realistic. Definitely. Oh, yeah, it's right. Elle is like, she wouldn't have done that because she just got in a perm and she can't get it. I would have never... Never go out of her hair. The hobby of some legal expert realized a story couldn't be true because they were involved. No. Nothing like that. But we do go down some rabbit holes. I will say that. Well, so what I can say is I'm sure it's very often that someone's story might involve an esoteric... Like, let's say this. Let's say like a skateboarder was charged with a crime or whatever. And in his story he mentioned doing... He said he did a McTwist down a stair set. And you're just going like, okay, so I have to route skating like I did this McTwist down the stair set. And then, you know, that's when I saw the body. Anybody who skates knows he's long. You can't do a McTwist down a stair set. But if you didn't skate, you just be like, I... I would have looked that up. I would find that out.

2:03:28But I don't think... I don't think you can even look up McTwist and understand why it can't be done down stairs. I would find a skater. I would 100% find a skater. Yeah. Because then they'd be like... I guess technically you could do it. Yeah. So technically, I make Twatch's kind of like an inverted 540. It's a stylized 540. I don't know how you're doing that stair set. Right. That story doesn't really make sense. Oh no, I tried to get my husband to do a stun gun on me once because I was convinced that it wouldn't leave the marks that the lady said it was left. And he was like, I feel really uncomfortable with this. I was like, I need a demo. I need to see if it'll actually leave the marks. See that's like the TV show though. No, I'm like that. Yeah, I do that. Yeah, that'd be a funny TV show. Yeah. He's like, I feel like we've got to prove it. It's stunning. Like, I need to see what the mark looks like. Wow. I mean, I didn't think the mark matched. You ever feel like it's weird, huh? Like being in a courtroom. You ever feel, does that ever feel like we're because you're playing a role. Yeah, it is like acting, but I love it. It was very weird testifying on the stand. That's weird. That's what I want to say. It's a real like the last thing I'll say is we have the emotional manipulation. Always like, have you guys seen good lawyers who have like done an Oscar winning performance

2:04:35like with with trying? Because what I would do to those female jurors, I would have them bawling their eyes out and begging for Kleenex as I told the story to defend or prosecute. You want the jury to feel what it's like to sit in your client's chair. So that is it's and but we call it storytelling, you know, but what we try to do is we try to do storytelling because we want the jury to understand what it feels like in how far can you go with it? It says a layer. You go as far as the judge will let you. I mean, you should test the judge, right? If you really want to push the boundaries, you just keep going and going and going. So if you said something like, hey, calm down. What if you said you can directly address the jury? Right. We can talk to the jury. So we can but only during certain arguments. But like in closing. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay. So closing. I'm talking right at him. What if you said, I want you all to close your eyes right now. I want you to imagine the look on your child's face. Yeah. I want you to feel. Stay can't do that. But defense can. And you can we can do certain.

2:05:35Yeah. But would you get away with this? Certain parts of it. Yeah. I want you to start getting in trouble when you start saying just imagine yourself as the victim. Yeah. You know, how would you feel of this? Not the fact that you that they want. I want just I want you to imagine. That moment when you when you when you woke up, you saw your child. They look up to you. They're everything. You're there everything. They love you. You love them. You would do anything for them. I want you now to imagine everything's blurry. And when you wake up, you are holding your child's dead body. You do that. You're allowed to do that. Yep. And then you start crying. Yeah. And then you say you realize what you've done. I mean, what the best lawyers do is they make. Yeah. You need to make your technical legal argument. You mentioned earlier, maybe it's the prior show of of in your closing argument, you're speaking to the jury instructions, right? Because it's an algorithm. The jury has to follow. They have little verdict boxes. And you you want them to make their job easy. So you want to kind of explain to them, this is how I want you to do this to equip my client. So what if you said you're holding your child's dead body, your hands around their neck, you couldn't have done that.

2:06:40There's no way you would have ever have done that. Something was within you that you lost control. I think it starts to get problematic. That's when the judge is going to be like, stop. Yeah, the defense could do that though. The defense can get away with that. Yeah. Yeah, the state would have a hard time doing that. Because what I would want to do is I want to say, I'm sure they would object just to cause a scene and then it would be okay. They want to interrupt the storytelling to break the emotion. That'd be worse. That's what I would do. Yeah. But you basically say like, do you do you feel it is possible for a loving mother? Yeah. The way you've felt with your kids, you think it's possible that in your in your sound, being sound of mine, you would do that. You could do that. I don't think it would work very well though. Yeah, I don't think so. Not for the defense. No, I don't think that would work that well for the defense. Getting a little crying. Well, in this case, for example, you don't want them thinking about what happened. Because what happens awful, you know, you want them thinking about her mental illness. So that would probably backfired, but you could do that. And I would say with the crying, I mean, you asked about the crying, like if it's natural, but that's kind of, I don't know.

2:07:42I haven't seen a lot of lawyers crying court. That's why I, I'm not a lawyer and I wouldn't personally know. But like some of the most impactful fundraising I've ever done is when I started crying and got them crying. And then they hand over their wallet. Oh, if you get the jury crying, like for your case, yeah. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. The reason, so if you want to invoke crying in someone else, particularly with a woman, I've definitely had to urge cry. You need to be crying a little bit yourself. Yeah. Because women are more empathic or empathetic. Guys will be aggressive. So actually some guys, it's tough. Depending on the subject matter, if you try pulling my heart is breaking for this loss, a guy might get mad at you. Yeah, guys might get aggressive and be like, stop being a bitch. Yeah. Like there's a few things that's true though. There's a few things you can get away with with men in emotional manipulation. Like your kids dying or your dog dying. But there are some things where you know, you never know, it's risky. Where if you try to pull in the heart rings of a guy, see, so I'll put it this way.

2:08:44Backfire. When, when, uh, see, I don't know, like when I was a little kid, if I stopped my tie, I'd cry. It's like uncontrollable, you know, it's just like, then after puberty, I get angry. When my skateboard hits my shins, I'm beat red with rage, punching something angry in the pain. And so I think for a lot of guys, testosterone may do this. Guys don't get sad about things that get angry about them happening. So you run that risk. Women will, will empathize with you and have a sympathetic response. So if you start welling up, they're always crying. Oh my god. And then you want to, you want to inject that emotion. I'll tell you, you really learn your jury. Because you, I mean, when you do Vaudier, like you're asking them personal questions, very personal questions. And you watch them, especially like this case, like a six week trial. I mean, you're, you know what they said in Vaudier. So I've already identified, you know, who you are and who you are. So when I'm making a certain argument, I'm making it to you. Yeah. I'm making it to you. Like I know, because you told me that you had been in a car accident.

2:09:45And so I'm making an argument. And I know you're going to take that back in the jury room and you're going to talk about that. Do you told me that your mom did something? And so I'm talking to you about that. Do you guys, like, write down the jurors? And then you have like many profiles on them. Yeah. And then like, at some point, I imagine you've like, I think we've convinced one, four, three, nine, right. We always, well, we always kind of try to figure it out. And there's, there's usually some jurors that we weren't thrilled about being on the jury. Because you can't get rid of everybody. You only can get rid of nine. So there's always the jurors you love. The jurors you love, I always say state cuts. They're gone. The jurors I love. You know, like we're not going to get our favorites. I always tell my clients that. So we're going to get people in the middle of the road. But there's always going to be a couple that you're like, I didn't really want them on the jury. But they were, you know, the best out of what was left. And those are the ones that you're kind of like not really talking to you. But there's a couple that you're talking to. And you're kind of hoping that they become the four person. Because the four person can be sort of. And keep in mind, when you're going into trial, you already know what the legal arguments and evidence is going to be, right. In theory, the trials should be completely scripted for you.

2:10:46It's only a blank slate for the jury. And because you know what the legal arguments and evidence are going to be, you're already thinking not just about your opening statement. And you're thinking about your closing statement. And you're thinking about what you want available as building blocks for that closing statement. So when you're doing Vaudier, you're looking for the jury for signs that you can leverage in that closing. What's what here? Oh, it's when you select the jury. So Vaudier, it's French for to find the truth, which is crazy. So you're actually trying to get jurors to talk to you. So we're allowed to ask them certain questions. Some judges give us a little more leeway. The judges that do give us leeway, I can tell you my cases. They're usually one or lost in jury selection. And I can tell you once my jury seated, they probably already know my theory of the case before they've heard anything of them. I think the defense should have final San alters. I do too. And I think we should be able to talk to them. Like in the federal system, where they just put them on you, it's ridiculous. My peers, what does that mean? My peers, that's really just... That's why it's the choice of the accused to choose who his peers are.

2:11:46Yeah. It's a fair cross section is what they say. No, I agree. In fact, that's literally what it means. It was an option under English law where the peers could have a jury of other lords to sit on them. Yeah, that's why. Because how would the common people know? Right, common people can decide. The reason why is because if you're someone whose children were killed and someone who killed children, and you have a jury, none of them have kids. Right, that's hard. Yeah, anyway. We do better wrap it up. We are over, but I want to give a shout out to Hades. He said they want us to check this out real quick. A mother in 1954, it's round her three children. When the system took it easy on her, she did it again. She had kids. We were just talking about that case. We're going to wrap it up. It's Labor Day weekend. You guys got to get on the road. We got to get on the road. It's burger time. It's the last time to get a good swim in. Don't miss out. Thanks for hanging out. Follow me on accident Instagram at Timcast. And actually, we had a great conversation. These fine lawyers here will be joining in the Tim Pool Show on Sunday. Check out the Tim Pool Show on Rumble and YouTube. Subscribe. Y'all want to shout anything out. Sure.

2:12:46Turn to Andrew Branca. Do criminal defense, specializing self defense law. Get my free book. Be hard to convict if you ever have to defend yourself. At lawselfdefense.com and follow my political commentary at the Branca show on X and YouTube. And I'm Ashley Merchant. I'm a criminal defense attorney out of Atlanta, Georgia. And I'm the host of the MK True Crime podcast. Thanks. Take it away, Richie. Richie McGinnis on all social media platforms just launched the YouTube. Check that out and check out Politibrol where I work with Matt. And I also wrote a book called Riot Diet. Check it out. Matt Miller, editor of Politibrol. Check us out on Substack and Politibrol Streetcast on YouTube for our Man on the Street Videos and Investigations. Follow me at Ian Crossland. It's my name. You get me on X YouTube and Instagram, I think, are the best places to follow me at Ian Crossland. Carter Banks. Yeah. Man, I got to put two mics here. Y'all can't see me on screen so I'll do one of these. But yeah, Ian Carter Banks. Been a pleasure having all of you a great conversation. And yeah, have a great Labor Day weekend, everyone.

2:13:47We're back on Tuesday. Actually, we're back on Sunday. You can watch the Sunday Tim Poole show. But that would be back on Tuesday because it's Labor Day. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see you all then. Bye.