Most Lindsay Clancy Coverage Has the Law All Wrong

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: Thank you.

0:00:04 Matt: Defense is going on and on about proving illness when that is the first thing the Commonwealth conceded.

0:00:17 Matt: 2017, he gets a two -year green card, and then he has to renew it. And And I think at the time of renewal that that they found that it was was a a fraudulent fraudulent marriage. Is a text in in which Milo says to to him that that this was only a green card marriage anyway, in there, how's the weather on the other side of my desk?

0:00:34 Thomas: And welcome to Opening Arguments in Matt's office. I'm Thomas. That over there is Matt. How you doing? Hot, if you're asking. If I'm being honest, it is too muggy in here. I am way too hot. Wish that was a serious question. Can you do anything about that? No, we can't do anything.

0:00:44 Matt: It's just how I like it. No,

0:00:50 Thomas: It's fine.

0:00:50 Matt: Not in record at the same time, but this is a welcome to my recording space, this is the first time you've been here. A pleasure. Is the second time we've been able to record in person and it's just so much fun.

0:00:59 Thomas: Oh, yeah, it's been a long time since the first one.

0:01:01 Matt: Yeah, with Liz, that was a good time.

0:01:02 Thomas: I'm proud setup I made work. We weren't counting on it, but I got a janky aggregate device with several different inputs and outputs that all are coming from our mouths to our own ears.

0:01:12 Matt: We're doing it live. That's right.

0:01:14 Thomas: Very happy. I'm so excited to be here. You know, here's the thing, Matt. I was going to try to surprise you. I tried to book an interview with Gary the Seagull, but his press team is, phew, boy. Yeah. They wouldn't even entertain that. I like that. I couldn't even I don't even know that they told him. I think they just, brushed you me off.

0:01:22 Matt: Hard to get. Recommend a slice of veggie pizza. That'll get you.

0:01:33 Thomas: It. I got to grease the wheels that I didn't realize with actual grease.

0:01:35 Matt: That Just Faneuil Hall right over there at Regina Pizzeria. That's the way to go. But yeah, no, this is great. We have a lot to talk about. And you've landed Massachusetts in the middle of a major Massachusetts trial that we have to talk talk about. We have no choice.

0:01:48 Thomas: Get some more witches or.

0:01:49 Matt: Some people might say so, unfortunately.

0:01:51 Thomas: Yeah, same.

0:01:52 Matt: This is a story I have not wanted to talk about it is really dark. And I don't want to dwell on the facts too much. But I kind of talk about first of all, because the jury is out right now, it may be done by the time you hear this. But my guess is it's going to come on the way things are going. But the way this is being reported, and the way people are talking about this has made me a little crazy. And I'm going to tell you about Massachusetts law, because it doesn't seem to want to do that, about how the Massachusetts law actually worked and most importantly, does not work in the Lindsay Clancy trial.

0:02:17 Thomas: Now, if I was going to make sure you said it for Yeah. No, I haven't want to talk about that. And like you said, we're not getting the details. I mean, everybody knows the main story, but that's not. So I have a lot of thoughts about I'm excited to hear, especially when, you know, it sounds like people are covering it wrong. That's always a good opportunity to try to get the real info out there. But, yeah, I'm not I can't I can' emotionally get too much into what actually happened. It's too hard, but it is important. I'm very interested just in what we think the justice system is supposed to do and what we want out of it. And I shouldn't even say we, because I just feel like an alien when it comes to these things, you imagine looking at that situation and being like, hmm, she needs to serve Sirius the chair. You know, it's like, what's that going to do? So I never understand it.

0:03:04 Matt: As we'll find out, and I really want to stress this, Massachusetts law was not built for this. We're talking about 19th century law that doesn't know what to do with the situation. Both sides are talking past each other in these closing arguments. It's a bizarre situation, but we'll get there. We don't know if there's a lighter side to this, but we're going talk about Milo Yiannopoulos as well, The deportation of the Trump term so far, I think. At least the biggest shock, I by ego.

0:03:25 Thomas: Ego, I guess. If you measured by ego.

0:03:27 Matt: Weight of ego. Yeah.

0:03:29 Thomas: The whole, you know, we're not fans of deportations, but I did feel like the air got lighter when that guy's head left. Left yeah voice

0:03:35 Matt: I'm never going to celebrate a deportation, but I can see that that is appropriate. This is somebody who has cheered on mass deportation. Cheered on ICE. Actively said horrible things and created waves of hate speech online and elsewhere. There are a lot of mysteries wrapped up in this. He's not telling the truth. And we're going to take some time on Wednesday. Next Wednesday, we're going to talk about it on Vapid Response, because he has just done his first interview with Piers Morgan, his first overview out of deportation. Yes.

0:03:58 Thomas: Of reason piers morgan yeah

0:04:00 Matt: Yes. We have to listen to both of them, unfortunately, for this story. But I think it's fascinating because he's not totally telling the truth. The government's lying about him. And the media has not yet put together what happened that I think I have. So I'm going to tease that because we're gonna go deep on it on Wednesday, where I'm gonna try to step you through what I'm almost completely sure happened. I'm going to explain the basics and answer people's questions about it in today's show and make sure you understand what happened. Don't want to have to talk about Milo Yiannopoulos. I know you don't either, but it is a good chance to stop and take a look at how the system actually works and doesn't work, just like Lindsay Clancy, unfortunately. Got a theme here.

0:04:29 Thomas: Well that's a lot to talk about wait do we have a footnote secret footnote oh

0:04:32 Matt: Do have a footnote. Have an exciting new opportunity to tell you about, an investment, a little company called Twitter. May have heard of it. A company called Twitter that Elon Musk is not very happy about.

0:04:37 Thomas: I oh yeah because he changed the

0:04:45 Matt: Gave it up and they're claiming that they get to have it. So we'll We'll talk about what the suit's all about. It's pretty interesting.

0:04:45 Thomas: Name huh how did this not happen sooner yeah

0:04:51 Matt: Yeah, I know. It's such a good idea. He totally walked away from it. That's their argument. And I think they have a really strong case for abandonment.

0:04:53 Thomas: Can we just take a moment to I know we've we've said this somebody said this but to to cover how stupid you have to be, how bad you have to be at business, to take a thing. You bought the company. Fine. We get that. Honestly, he way overpaid, but in the end it might have been worth it to him, not business -wise, but ruining the country -wise. I think it might've made the difference. Joke's on us, I guess. But to buy the social media company whose name is synonymous with the action of saying something online like it's like you own xerox at a time when everyone's xeroxes stuff and you're like you know I'm gonna rename it to like splamp them and I'm going to xeroxe oh I mean I'm like what are you doing it's

0:05:41 Matt: Because he's always wanted to use X. He just, his entire life is

0:05:43 Thomas: So stupid what a child you bought the thing that is the thing it's a kleenex it's if you bought kleenexes and like like but I'm gonna rename it wispy to papers yeah people like hand me a kleenex you're like it's not called that why would you do that that's the most valuable thing I could imagine in you I still say tweeting sub tweeting you an idiot what an idiot okay sorry yeah

0:05:52 Matt: Rags. Me too. Me too. So useful. Goodwill as you can have toward a tech company, people love Twitter. And that's why they're trying to bring it back. So we'll see. Well,

0:06:11 Thomas: I don't know if I agree with that but yeah

0:06:14 Matt: I don't know. But just as a platform, it certainly had its heyday. So I got to talk about that and we'll wrap it up. But we've got these two big stories that are going to consume most of today. There's a lot to get into. To this

0:06:24 Thomas: I gotta say as As much as Matt always talks about how much he loves Boston, I've never been here. I can see the charm, though. It's all too nice. It's making me uncomfortable. Like the transit, public transit is like clean. I don't, I can't relate to that.

0:06:37 Matt: Be the first time that somebody has said that boston is too nice that it's famously mean but

0:06:40 Thomas: It's just too clean. No, no. Yeah, I'm not talking about the people. But yeah, it is just like really clean. I don't, how is that accomplished?

0:06:44 Matt: Is it's clean and safe and it's a wonderful place to live when we've got one of the coolest mayors in the country and uh of the best representation all around as of last night so happy to have you here great to have unilidia visiting and happy to give you the walk -in tour today but let's do this.

0:06:59 Thomas: Much fun. Yeah. Right, well, let's take that first break, and then we have a lot to talk about. So, hey, support the show, patreon.com/seriouspod. could really use your support. Harder than ever to be a media company of tiny size and trying to make a difference here. So please support the Show, get the goodies. We have a Lotawful Movies planned for you. You what someone suggested this online but I didn't need it because it was already my idea we're gonna cover acme v acme I can't wait I I can'T wait to watch that that's gonna be our it's not really gonna be a lot awful movie I don't think it'll be like a lot movie and

0:07:24 Matt: I'm excited. Great. We are due a fun one. It's time. We've had some bad ones.

0:07:32 Thomas: So that's that we haven't we haven'T uh recorded it yet but I'm excited to do that and uh of course gosh I gotta say I posted it on wednesday for the vapid response substitute. But if you, if you haven't gotten the gavel gavel part two of the, uh, the ice undercover bullshit, it is man. Part two is twice as good as part one. There's just so much there. So make sure you're on gavel, gavel. Uh, two might not be out on the main feed yet because I want to do something nice for the patrons, but it is out for the patrons of that show. So makes sure you get it.

0:08:02 Matt: Opportunity to review ISIS homework.

0:08:03 Thomas: It's as bad as their homework was in middle school through high school where, where they dropped out. All right, we'll take a break and then we'll get to it.

0:08:13 Thomas: Matt, let's talk about the story we haven't wanted to talk about. Do you want to start us off? What do you wanna do?

0:08:18 Matt: We got to talk about what this is just in case somebody's missed it. This has become another Massachusetts national, I think international case. It really does seem like it's gotten attention from all over from what I can see from our listeners. Is the the story of Lindsay Clancy, a woman who, and I want to stress this up front, has conceded that she caused the death of her children.

0:08:35 Thomas: Well, I dunno. Yeah.

0:08:37 Matt: Of the reasons I want to talk about this is the misinformation that I have seen, and we'll get through the law here. And I really want to talk about the law because it has not been talked about enough that is behind all of this. And this is exactly why the law has to change. I am not an expert in mental health. I'm sure that Genesic could provide a lot more information about postpartum depression, about the medications involved, about what else is going on mentally. I deep sympathies for everybody involved in this case. But right now, when I'm seeing all of these people saying that Patrick Clancy killed his children, man who lost his children to wife, absolutely killing them, has really hurt just to watch. I can't even imagine what he's going through. And please stop saying that, everybody. This is not cool. You're defaming him. And he will see if it sounds like his lawyers are getting revved up a lot of people online just going through and I saw the expression forensic fandom the other day is problematic forensic fandom like Wars exists you don't have to do this like

0:09:26 Thomas: There a lot of forensics in that one or you just mean being a fan of something?

0:09:28 Matt: Just you want to be a fan of something like there's funny fiction that you don't have to get people's lives tied up with yours like not talking about the people that are supporting her and the women who are coming out and talking about that I'm talking about the people who are trying to solve them

0:09:40 Thomas: Wanted to give a recommendation because I heard a really, really good episode of Slate's What Next podcast called What Lindsay Clancy Truthers Are Missing. And it's fantastic because it's the guest was someone named Megan Clifford, maybe if that's how you pronounce it. And went through postpartum psychosis and talks about what that was. It's really, really, really interesting. Say that because I know obviously everybody draws their battle lines and I get it, you know, and I think a lot of the, in this case, as much as we have a misinformation problem and a conspiracy theory problem, and we do, I think this one in particular maybe comes more from an emotional need for the thing not to be true. And I know a lot of them do, but this one feels even more that way. And what was interesting was hearing this Megan Clifford, who's gone through this, how much it kind of hurt her to have that be what people are saying, because a postpartum psychosis survivor and kind mental health advocate and it really bothered her because it's like it's a way to dodge the very very awful and serious issue of of postpartum mental health like it's a way to dodge that if it's this clean conspiracy where the husband actually did it it just completely bypasses what the very real issues are and it's just stupid it's just we don't need that it doesn't add anything so I wanted to recommend that because it really was interesting hearing someone go through that and and I also think not that we're coming at this again getting that much into the story and I'll let you you us all about the law in a second here but the only thing I wantedto say about it is just you know someone with opinions is can'T imagine looking at that situation and how everyone's lives are ruined and think like you know what we need more punishment like I just don't know what the point of justice is like in my in my view it feels like the point of justice some like a little bit of a deterrent I have to have some amount of that I think like some amount of deterrent for stuff but that's only for crime I I don't know that that applies to this at all. There's no way that as a deterrence, this poor woman, when she was hearing voices telling her to kill her kids, you think there was some rational brain that was going to intervene in that and be like, ah, I might do, you know, I might get the chair if I do that. She psychosis is a thing that if just no, like relating to it unless you've gone through it. It sounds like to me from, from hearing this podcast, where it's like someone is literally in your brain telling you things. And that's just a incomparable experience.

0:10:21 Matt: Get him. Reminds me of one of my favorite interviews that we've done in the last year with John Jay Lennon from Sing Sing, a convicted murderer, whose entire point of his book, I'm looking at it on my bookshelf actually right now, The Tragedy of True Crime, the entire point of his book was that we have this true crime industrial complex that requires people to be innocent so that we can get behind them. But what happens to the guilty people who are trying to rehabilitate, who are trying to do better? And what happens our prison system if we just think we can throw these people away because they did it? And, I really want to bring out in this conversation and have people think about in this is that there's a good argument that the health system failed when C. Clancy, and I'm not going to get too into it because I am not an expert in this case. I have studied the closing arguments and the law in this. Defense's position, of course, is that's what happened is that she was failed by the mental health system. Is also, I think, an even stronger argument that the legal system has failed in this case because it can't accommodate this situation in Massachusetts. It can in other states because other states have updated their laws since, you know, the last couple of hundred years. I'm going to run this down here. We have kind of an old fashioned approach in in several ways, to mental health in court. I guess I should add, of course, a massive trigger warning to this entire thing. Even though we're not going to talk about the facts that much, this is obviously a story that involves an attempted suicide. This involves, obviously, the murder of three children and just all the things that come with that. Necessarily that postpartum psychosis was responsible. They're leaving it to the jury.

0:13:19 Thomas: Interesting.

0:13:20 Matt: Was actually very surprised in the closing argument that Kevin Reddington did not do that. He actually is focusing more on the medication, which we'll talk about. But the way that we handle mental health, okay, so just again, to say this as clearly as possible, the defense is not arguing that anyone else could have possibly done it. They have not done that, Davis. They've conceded her guilt. And one of the reasons that people are complaining about the evidence in this is that the Commonwealth stipulated to a bunch of evidence so that they wouldn't have to go through introducing it. And that makes sense in this case. This is stuff that people should not have to see or hear. Juries should not have have to to be exposed to necessarily looking at crime scene photos in this in this case, if you can possibly help it. Know, Kevin Reddington appropriately narrowed the issues down to whether she is criminally criminally responsible or whether she's not guilty by reason of insanity. That's what we call it in Massachusetts. I know that insanity isn't the best language to use anymore.

0:14:01 Thomas: That clearly, in -part question, in an yes or no question, I think that it's that one. Can't imagine thinking anything else. Do you think there is some selfish motive that this woman had for killing her children and then trying to kill herself? Self is there some gain that she had personally that she was I just can't imagine looking at it through that lens I literally don't understand it like definitionally this isn't something a rational person does I don't understand looking at that way sure yeah I want to hear absolutely

0:14:25 Matt: I be doing my job if I didn't tell you the commonwealth argument. And I think there is something to the Commonwealth's argument, and I thought they actually presented much better. I know that Kevin Reddington is getting a lot of attention. I was not impressed with his closing. He misstated the law, I think maybe intentionally. Commonwealth also didn't do the best on the law but they presented very well. And were presenting a quite lot of evidence that in a lot of this. Now, there can be a mix of premediation and not not being in your right mind. And that's going to come in.

0:14:48 Thomas: I would encourage to listen to that podcast because um woman in that podcast described she all of a sudden had a feeling of this happens with psychosis that everyone in the world was in on it whatever it is and watching her and she just something snapped in her postpartum depression um mental health she was facing where she was on public transit and all of a sudden she she describes like someone was looking at her and then her brain just did a thing that I guess human brains do where now everybody in the world is watching her and is in on this conspiracy and it was so gripping to hear her talk about it but she did a thing and this this happens you know I've dealt with people who are having different mental health things that are adjacent to this and it's scary because she did a thing where every person she talked to all of a sudden her brain told her they were in on it and including to where she got home and was talking to her husband and then she was like now he's in on it. And she describes like she it's it's just this certainty that you can't relate to if If you haven't gone through a mental health crisis, like just imagine the mental health crisis being somehow your brain has decided this is true and it's, you like, can't get out of it. Reason I bring it up is because she described, she took measures that you could present as very deliberate and you could present, as you out ahead of time, but it's with the assumption that all this other weird stuff is happening that isn't, you know? It's like if I one day, let's just say my brain was convinced that Lydia was a lizard that was there to kill me or could still act completely rationally around that. I could be like, oh my God, she's a lizard. Here's how I'm going to kill her. I will plot something. I'll have her do such and such or leave the house. I'll create an alibi because I'm in the world where she's a lizard, you that doesn't create in my mind. Culpability by reason of you can function okay outside of that it's like that's the important part the the thing that you know and I can't get into this the facts at all but I did hear um referenced on this slate podcast was the first thing she said was like I'm glad my children are okay now because she believed that she was doing something to protect them in

0:16:58 Thomas: Her mind okay

0:16:58 Matt: Right, right. And that's not unusual in these cases, from what I understand. I'll just say, I'm not going to get into it too much, because I know that people have very strong opinions about this case. There is a lot of counterpoint to what you just said. Say, one of the things that bothers me about the Commonwealth's argument, it sounds callous in a lot because they're arguing she's criminally responsible. One thing they're saying, you know, she was a nurse and she had access to Massachusetts health care at a pretty good level, like some of the best health care in the country is here. Doesn't mean that all of this isn't true. That just means that she had acesso to a lot of different doctors and they still could have failed her. And the system still is not designed for women's mental health in the way it should be. I think that's still very, very possible. Evidence they presented of premeditation and of possibly knowledge of guilt and understanding that she shouldn't be doing this and is going to do it. In comparison to Andrea Yates, who is a much more dramatic example of someone who was hearing voices for months. You know, the allegation, I believe, oh,

0:17:07 Thomas: Sure yeah I know who that

0:17:42 Matt: Andrea Yates drowned her children about 20 years ago. It was a big case. And one, she was really pushed to it, like in a way that is extremely dramatic by an abusive husband. And not necessarily the allegation here, that had a lot of other factors in her life. And the Commonwealth made a point of distinguishing it because it had been raised by an expert, I believe. In my understanding, is that she said she heard a voice once and it wasn't like an ongoing kind of thing.

0:17:42 Thomas: Is oh wow oh wow sorry

0:18:03 Matt: Clemson -Clancy, yeah. I don't want to dispute the facts. I know that people have really strong views about the facts, I I want to stick with the law. Talk about the closing arguments when we come back and how I think they both made mistakes in how they did this. And it's easy for me, obviously, sitting in my office in Boston to talk about mistakes being made in the Plymouth Superior Court. But here we are, that's my job. Talk about criminal responsibility in Massachusetts, first of all, because I was going through the judge's instructions. We're going to play a little bit of this so people can get the idea. I said, not guilty in this case would be jury nullification if they come back and said not guilty it's possible they could still do it but she's conceded guilt so it would be jury nullication like

0:18:02 Thomas: The current yeah oh so not guilty rather than guilty by reason of insanity

0:18:36 Matt: Or guilty you could actually it's still on the table but could

0:18:38 Thomas: So the jury decides one of those three things oh

0:18:42 Matt: But but again she's already conceding and the judge I think is instructed that like you know she said that she caused their deaths uh just deciding what her state of mind was when she caused the deaths but if you really wanted a straight up jury nullificatio that's what you could do not I mean I don't know what I'm talking about but that's technically there uh that would be weird but uh given everything thing they've been instructed on it would be completely against the law but juries do that sometimes uh if you really want to send a message to the commonwealth about what you're talking about about like you shouldn't have done this then that's the way to do it to be honest guilty by reason of insanity in massachusetts is pretty unusual by the standards that we have today in most states and certainly by the federal government

0:19:12 Thomas: So I just want to clarify I'm not saying she shouldn't be found like I my opinion is I feel like the not guilty by reason of insanity is what it is I don't know that it'll exactly map on to what my idea of justice would be but that seems closest

0:19:16 Matt: I know oh I agree right but if you had somebody who was like a little more radical about it just like is like this none of this all sucks and you shouldn'T do it right and I can see that perspective, maybe, although some of these facts we'll see. Weird thing about this is that in most situations, including the federal government now in most states, you as the defendant have to prove that you were suffering from mental health problems that interfered with your ability to think rationally. In this case, the government, the Commonwealth, has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the crime and that she was criminally responsible, which is to say that that she lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. And a mental disease or defect under this situation is not a medical term. It's a legal term. And so the point can be made.

0:20:07 Matt: And because Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney, I think did kind of a red herring in his closing argument where he's picking apart the experts, which is fine. The jury can draw on their common sense understandings. And the presumption, which is kind of maybe not a good presumption anymore, is that the average person is sane. So you're starting from the baseline that most people are sane.

0:20:05 Thomas: Interesting yeah

0:20:23 Matt: Jurisdictions is now the defendant's burden, and the Supreme Court upheld this in 1972, I believe, is the defendant'S burden to prove that were suffering from mental health problems that made them not criminally responsible. It is now in commonwealth the under the 19th century rule in Massachusetts. I don't know how many other jurisdictions still do this, but it is the government's burden. Common wealth either has to prove that there was no mental disease or defect at the time. Now, they've waived that argument. The commonwealth has stated that they know that she had some kind of mental disease of defect. But takes it to the other prime, that if there was a mental disease of defect, that she nonetheless retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of her conduct and to conform her conduct to the requirements of law. Law. Imagine situations where maybe you're under the influence of medication and you're not thinking straight. You're not being rational. Like maybe you drive when you shouldn't be driving or something. Right. But mother knows that they're not supposed to kill their children. Like, is it a fundamental thing? That's something that no mother would ever do in a rational state unless they wanted to kill the children. That's kind of the way it has to go. When you're appreciating the wrongfulness of your criminality, it means to understand, not just to know but you have to really understand going to look at the from the jury instruction actually you know what let's very quickly let's just hear the jury instruction I think it's really interesting because

0:20:23 Thomas: Huh okay

0:21:28 Matt: I think you might surprise people a little bit it

0:21:30 Clip: Is criminally responsible for her conduct. The defendant has no burden to prove a lack of criminal responsibility.

0:21:39 Clip: Criminal responsibility is a legal term. A person is not criminally responsible for conduct if she has a mental disease or defect. And as a result of that mental disease or defect, she lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct, or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. The phrase mental disease or defect is a legal term, not a medical term. It need not fit into a formal medical diagnosis. The phrase, mental disease or defect, does not include any abnormality characterized only by repeated criminal conduct. It is for you to determine, in light of all the evidence, whether the defendant had a mental disease, or defect. If the Commonwealth has proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the killing, the Commonwealth has satisfied its burden of proving that the Defendant was criminally responsible. If

0:22:50 Matt: There you go. Our standard jury instructions on this. I just really wanted to make sure people heard that for themselves, because that is kind of a shocking idea, that the commonwealth has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you are not suffering from. Conceded the first prong, they conceding that she was, but they're saying that she still had the ability to conform her conduct to law, that she knew that what she did was wrong. So that's where we're starting as a starting point. Point. All of the stuff about guilt or innocence is not relevant. It's about criminal responsibility or not. So he starts, the judge started to do charging with all all of that. So before he gets to the crimes, before he tells you what they are. Really super interesting thing also, we won't play all of this, but I think, the only place in criminal law where the judge has to tell them about the consequences of conviction.

0:23:29 Thomas: Wow yeah because that never I I always feel like that makes no sense that they can't know I hate that yeah

0:23:34 Matt: First, Obviously, first -degree murder, he doesn't say this, but first - degree murder is mandatory life without parole in Massachusetts. Consequences in this case, for not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, tell them about what's going to happen if somebody's found NGRI. And I think that's interesting that the DA is going to petition for commitment to mental health. Understanding, there's no limit on renewals. They can keep coming back. And she potentially, because this is such an unusual situation, because she may not be a danger to anybody else because of this limited situation, she might be out much faster than people usually are when they are found to NGRI. Possible.

0:24:03 Thomas: Honestly what is the danger I I don't even understand it like she's gonna have more kids and

0:24:08 Matt: The danger, I think. But otherwise, I mean, I don't think there's any allegation that she's a danger of the public generally, the way that many people would be if they did something like this. Yeah, I don't know. But that's just an interesting note that the judge actually told the jury what's going to happen if they find her NGRI. It's under a case called Mutina.

0:24:23 Thomas: That because maybe they want to like scare people into being like that's not not enough punishment. Like, cause I feel like that's always what the justice system is doing. Like you can't tell them that there's going to be too much punishment. Cause then you won't be finding them guilty. And then maybe this is like, well, let's tell them that there might not be enough punishment, so you'll find them guilty

0:24:41 Matt: In the converse, I think there's also the general myth that you get off, right? That you're going to be fully scot -free if you're found NGARI. That that's like some kind of tactic that people use. So works both ways, I Think. Then we get to the actual crimes, and these are pretty familiar. But I just want to mention because Massachusetts has some quirks on this, and I've heard this reported pretty badly. So are two theories of first -degree murder at work here. The first one is the one we're very familiar with, deliberate premeditation, that she had time and that can even be seconds. And in Massachusetts, there's been been some kind of nutty cases where people have had just seconds to decide that they want to kill somebody and that's enough to be first degree murder. Mental impairment instruction, there is a separate mental impairment restriction for this premedication that it focuses on the prescription drugs, that they can decide that because there's consumption of prescription drugs that she could form the intent, but the evidence is in play basically about the impairment. Experiment the second theory which again I've heard this mashed up with the first one I make sure you don't understand they're different kevin reddington did not argue a defense to this theory because I don't think she has one the second thing is extreme atrocity or cruelty and that's when you cause death uh intent to cause grievous bodily harm in circumstances that a reasonable person would know would cause a plain and strong likelihood of death with extreme atrocITY or cruelty which is generally defined as extremely wicked or brutal appalling horrifying or utterly revolting and by definition strangling your children to death is utterly revolting there's there's no way around it. To prove extreme atrocity or cruelty, you have to either show some kind of indifference or pleasure to suffering. That's not what they're arguing. Think they're just going to argue that it was excessive and out of proportion to what we needed to kill, and just generally sort of by definition. I was a little surprised that Reddington didn't argue the defense on this. He's just kind of letting it sit because And I think there is actually a legal defense under the terms of the law here. You could could actually say that it wasn't disproportionate.

0:26:09 Thomas: Yeah. I know this is obviously a horrible thing to talk about, but in talking with Liz certain other standards, I know it's New York, but like standard for like, like what's egregious or something like, what was it? It was like egregius conduct. It was stuff where it's like, just suffice to say without getting into details, merely strangling someone, even merely strangeling a child. I actually legally could imagine that not matching that requirement just because that requirement is like gruesome, awful stuff, you know, sadistic stuff versus I could imagine to your point, like the defense of like, well, this was kind of in her mind the the easiest way or something like that and wasn't meant to be an atrocity or

0:26:49 Matt: Humane way to strangle somebody, I'm sorry to say, that is possible.

0:26:52 Thomas: As a legal standard relative to you know relative to like killing somebody in a horrible way that you know yeah

0:26:57 Matt: You make them unconscious, I don't want to dwell on this. The thing that I'm really interested in is manslaughter here, because most people I think would assume, and if you don't know Massachusetts law especially, you would assume that there'd be a manslaughter component here that would involve mental health, that that it's a mitigating factor, that mental health is a mitigated factor that gets you to the point where it's manslaughter and not first -degree murder because you couldn't form the intent properly. Don't have voluntary manslaughter under these circumstances. That's my problem with this. We have is three different kinds of that all have to do with the victim's behavior, basically. So of passion, It's, you know, they started to fight with you. Obviously, none of that is going to apply here. So is the blind spot I'm going to say on our law, that they were able to present a voluntary manslaughter charge and a voluntary menslaughter case, I think the Commonwealth might win. And I think it might be a lot harder to defend. I think that might be what this fits into, potentially. I don't know. And again, I'm not an expert on the facts. I'm just saying that should have been on the table. And the way that they're doing these closings is bizarre to me. And I'll get to that in a minute. Because I just, the things they chose to focus or not focus on, and the defenses, the defense fence gave up. This is kind of weird, mental impairment of a kind. I was trying to talk this out of the KC last night because it's very strange. It is kind available into the knowledge element of manslaughter. Because manslaughter in Massachusetts is you know that you're doing something that's dangerous, but not necessarily that causes death. Could say that if somebody's on prescription drugs, that they are engaging in conduct that they don't knows is necessarily going to cause death, that they're going too far, that they're not in the right mind. That is an argument, maybe. But voluntary, it's basically only charged with involuntary wanton or reckless manslaughter. That's the third thing. And I should say, these are lesser included offenses of murder. That'S how we do it in Massachusetts. So those are options the jury has. And right now, as we're speaking, the jury is hung. As I said, we'll see what happens by the time this airs. I'm predicting, based on what we're seeing, it seems very likely that they'RE going to be probably getting the Rodriguez -Tewi instruction that tells them to really give it a thought, come back, see if we can do this. Happens. Couple of things I want to talk about before we move on, but I just wanted to make sure that the law is as clear as it could be here and that people understand kind it's at, where it'S not, and what is missing from all of this. Because I think I've seen people asking, why isn't there a voluntary manslaughter instruction? It doesn't exist in this case. There's no provision

0:28:55 Thomas: I that's something that gets missed and a lot of coverage. What?

0:28:59 Matt: For it. And it's strange. I mean, it's one of the, Massachusetts law has a lot of weird quirks. Unfortunately, I think should bring some attention to, and I hope the legislature does something about it. This might be a really good opportunity to start to think in a more sophisticated 21st century way about mental health and these mitigations. Essentially, Kevin Reddington's closing argument was that this was a manipulated sort of thing that, not that she didn't do it, but that the Commonwealth was presenting the worst possible view of the facts and manipulating the jury and trying to think that she's criminally responsible. He had some complaints about the investigation, but again, there was a very thorough investigation. Patrick Clancy has a very very solid alibi on video, among no question in my mind that he was not there and he did not do it. Just kind of throwing that out there, I think, just to throw it at the wall. But I guess I should have disclosed my personal bias in this, that the main defense witness in this case owes me a good deal of money and apology. That's another story. I don't really want to talk about it, but it was my client's apology, certainly, but that's up to him he

0:29:55 Matt: Knows what he did so uh enough of that but thing that bothered me about his closing and maybe we can just play this part let me find the right part here um get to hear his lovely massachusetts accent um

0:29:56 Thomas: Jesus.

0:30:05 Clip: Young lady is not guilty of the killing of her children because she was suffering from a disease and defect as his honor instructed you and they're not going to be able to prove otherwise and it's they who are guilty not us thank you

0:30:22 Matt: Frustrating because that's not the standard and the commonwealth is going to concede in the opening seconds of their closing that she was suffering from mental disease or defect that's what we're arguing about this is a red herring. Question is what happens and what your level of responsibility is and how much it impaired you. And he doesn't really get into that in his closing, which just makes it seem like he doesn'T have a case when he's not responding to that.

0:30:40 Thomas: A weird distinction. I wonder how many of the jurors are properly understanding that.

0:30:45 Matt: I guess it is to his benefit to just say this is black and white. And if you find, yeah.

0:30:48 Thomas: It might be intentional to try to just, you know, fudge it under all that.

0:30:49 Matt: That's true. Commonwealth did a pretty good job of explaining what the law actually is and how it's supposed to work um the commonwealth literally starts their closing by saying there's no dispute that she was suffering from mental illness and tried to kill herself and there's not a dispute that her children so we're what we're talking about is whether she knew the difference between right and wrong essentially and can conform her conduct and talking past each other because pretending it's about one thing and then they're taking about what it actually is going to be for them without and they I think wisely are not arguing about whether or not she has a mental disease or defect I think that's a much better way to go um

0:31:16 Thomas: The state get the last word?

0:31:18 Matt: I'm sorry I meant to mention that so that's how we do it here uh of the other ways that it's different yeah so we that we start yeah we start commonwealth ends yes

0:31:19 Thomas: That's bad. Good. Could imagine that kind of fuzzy, you he's doing working way better if he gets the last word, but I don't see it working well because, because you're saying right after he does it this way, you're saying that the prosecution gets to come in and be like, no, that's not what we're actually, I want to just, can I play the start of that? Okay is right after what we just played boy

0:31:47 Clip: That lindsey clancy was suffering from mental illness and that she tried to kill herself there's there's no dispute about that. All of the evidence that you've heard, even the experts that the common law put before you, say that she was suffering from mental illness and she tried to kill herself. That's not the issue in this trial. The issue is whether, at the time she killed Cora, Dawson, and Cary, she knew the difference between right and wrong, and whether she could conform her behavior to the requirements of the law. This case is not about our mental health system, or how it treats women, or what's in the DSM-5 and what's not, that's a distraction to get too angry and passionate about an important issue, but an issue that's not on trial here. What's on trial, what the issue is here, is what Lindsay Clancy did the night of January 24th, 2023, and what her mental state was at the time. And you can use her psychological history and records, the treatment records, to look at both before and after she came to the case. To look at how she got to that point.

0:33:01 Thomas: I gotta tell you that's pretty effective

0:33:02 Matt: It's a really good opening honestly jennifer sprague a very very experienced prosecutor I think she did very well with this closing I think she did pretty well with a lot of it. The Commonwealth did not do this perfectly, but they never do. I mean, there's no way to do that. I just want to point out a few things that the defense essentially left on the table here that I understand why they didn't respond to. The Commonwealth is hammering about her knowledge, which is a very important part of this. And remember when I said appreciate means to understand, not just to know, but you have to understand what you're doing, not just you're aware of it, and did not touch that. He just didn't talk about it.

0:33:30 Thomas: No, we're not we're trying to get too into the thing but can you tell me what like the couple of best facts for the state is that they're using to say she kind of knew what she was doing or whatever okay okay

0:33:39 Matt: That she purposely sent him out for medication to a CVS that was much further than they would usually go and went to get food at a place that was much further than they usually go, right? I guess it was unusual. There's something about that place. And generally speaking that, that she had like it out, that she had an, now her version of this is that I was looking to see how far away it was going to be because I wanted to see how long I was going to be alone, but And the Commonwealth's response is obviously you knew, then why are you letting yourself be alone?

0:34:01 Thomas: That's interesting well because me putting I don't know that this would be the best defense or anything But putting it into the lens of kind of what I learned from that podcast I listened to about this whole thing, again, if you put it in the Lydia's a lizard lens, yeah, she surprised they didn't do this, or maybe this, again maybe this is not a good idea for some reason, but if something was telling her to do this to protect her kids, to save her kids from something, then she could have thought that the husband was a bad guy who was going to do bad stuff and stop her from doing that.

0:34:34 Matt: Certainly.

0:34:35 Thomas: And so far from appreciating that the thing she was... Like, I see how they're trying to use that to say, ah, she knows she's doing something wrong, right? Like... She might think she's going to be able to do that. She's doing the right thing and needs to rescue them because that's how psychosis works and needs the help of the right people. And she needs to get this bad guy out of the way to do it.

0:34:51 Matt: For no, sure.

0:34:52 Thomas: You're saying they just didn't even touch that part?

0:34:55 Matt: He did not really, he didn't really address the stuff that goes to the knowledge that she might have had and her understanding of the whole thing, and the appreciation of wrongfulness that they get into. And there are a lot of other things that sort of come around with the appreciation of wrongfulness. And part I really don't want to touch is where they're talking about how she had more than adequate care and she just wasn't using her care properly. That is loaded.

0:35:11 Thomas: Don't... That's stupid.

0:35:12 Matt: I think so. It's it's not a very popular argument for good reason um they have to make it I think and know and they're saying that the suicide attempt was fake and then they can prove that too Yes, I don't want to get into the details about all this but story window yeah so she did slit her wrists and took pills as well um not enough in any of those circumstances. But argument is that she did this in such a way that she knew that she would survive. I don't know. Again, it's so dark to be arguing about and to hear these closing statements.

0:35:12 Thomas: I can't imagine that being... Yeah. Sorry, isn't she paralyzed? She, did she jump out a window or something? Wow. Again, listen to yourself. Are you saying, oh no, she was totally sane because she paralyzed herself and slither us and took pills in a way that was like, what is she Moriarty? I just, that's killed her three children. That's definitionally insane. I you have a case of someone doing that, like for money or something, I can't think of when that would be not definitionally not saying I no there there you go yeah

0:35:47 Matt: Now. Yeah, right There that woman who drove her kids into a lake and blamed a Black guy from Texas. I mean, that does happen, but

0:36:07 Thomas: Unless you have something likethat I can't imagine just someone who by all accounts was a good mom up until this well okay I shouldn't say that because I again I haven't gotten the details it's too heartbreaking but my understanding is she was a good mum up untilthis mental health crisis what

0:36:20 Matt: And there's a lot of evidence of that. And Bredington did well pointing it out. And I think he's infantilized her a little bit in all of this. He keeps calling her girl and like a kid, basically. But well, it's part of the sort of.

0:36:28 Thomas: I mean he is a thousand years old the defense defense attorney yeah

0:36:31 Matt: And will say I'm a lot of people have been very touched about the way he's kind of patting her back and holding her hand. And that's all defense attorney 101 stuff. I'm not saying he doesn't mean it. I am sure he cares about her. It is very important to show the jury that she's a person that you can touch and that she is human. And I have no problem with doing that.

0:36:46 Matt: But that's not unique to him. That's what defense attorneys do.

0:36:48 Thomas: Was there anything else that was like significant that would change my mind about how conscious she was of what she was doing or okay

0:36:54 Matt: That none of her doctors had caught any sign or hint point of psychosis that she had not really expressed in any kind of way that she was necessarily a danger to the kids. Nobody thought she really was, allegedly. And I don't know. I don t know enough about the case to know, but that's part of her state of mind.

0:37:08 Thomas: That does nothing for me because psychosis is you don't want to be caught you think everyone's out to get you or you think some weird insane thing you can't say things that will have them take away your kids that's part of not being sane enough to you conscious moral decisions or whatever yeah

0:37:25 Matt: This is too dark, you can cut it. But there's also the fact that she started with the oldest one, knowing that he was going to be able to run away. And that does seem like kind of taking them in order that way. It does seem like somewhat conscious of what you're doing. But again, I don't know.

0:37:37 Thomas: I'm just putting things into my lens for what that's worth but I really encourage people to listen to that slate episode because it in the lens of you think your partner's a lizard out to get you like like mental health crises, like psychosis is literally like that. It doesn't mean that you can't do anything else. It often means like you, you make sure to plot things out so you don't get caught because you're trying to kill the lizard people, you

0:38:00 Matt: Didn't case, which is sort of about the substantial capacity at the time of the conduct. I feel like focusing on that because the Commonwealth was going on and on about all of these ordinary days that she was having. That. I was listening last night, I kind of made some notes on some of this, but focused, I think this is deliberate, but he focused on postpartum a little bit, but not very much. And he talked a lot about the medication and argued with the experts a lot, which is fine because he presented several mental health experts. The end of the day, it's not about an expert finding it. It's about what a person thinks and that's

0:38:29 Thomas: What happens if they're deadlocked and they refuse? It's been days of this. So the judge already do the thing where he says gives the like direction like okay try harder to does

0:38:39 Matt: The Rodriguez -Tury. Yes, thank you. That's what I'm looking for in the managers. I know. And maybe, you know, it'll happen very soon by the time that you hear this. But

0:38:47 Thomas: What's an Allen charge? Is that something? No, It just came to me. That must be, so would that be the federal one then? Or

0:38:50 Matt: Yeah, I think so. I don't think that applies to us.

0:38:52 Thomas: It's kind of interesting, you in all the different courts, all the different states, whatever, they have the different names like Brady evidence or whatever grade violation will kind of have a different term from a different case you allen charge was the one I was trying to remember that's where the judge is like all try to convince each other harder or whatever um

0:39:07 Matt: It's been so long. And also, for what it's worth, two of the women on the jury went in wearing pink the other day, and that is the color that the supporters have been wearing. That might be an interesting issue later. Who knows? But

0:39:17 Thomas: That affect things like well I guess I mean it's usually the state doesn't get like another chance to

0:39:22 Matt: They will, though. If it's hung, then they will get to come back and retry her. And that's a concern, because this is a hell of a trial. Literally, this is a hellish trial.

0:39:29 Thomas: That's what I was trying to ask because I don't I know it seems basic but like what does the hung jury mean versus so that means they're not they're finding like oh she's not guilty by reason of sanity that just means we can't do it and

0:39:40 Matt: Throwing up our hands. We're done. And

0:39:41 Thomas: So then the state has the option to like do it all over again

0:39:43 Matt: Just like they did with Karen Reid under the same circumstances. And the Karen Reid is an interesting analogy because, of course, it was a huge media sensation. It was a big social media sensation and it was a community sensation. It was something where people came together and it became a cause. This has been the same thing, but on an international level, because it has become a rallying cry for women to talk about postpartum depression, about mental health. And I don't want to discount any of that. I think it's very important that these conversations happen. It's just that we happen to be two men sitting here talking about it. I don't want to get into it that much. I just want to support the idea of that, obviously. But, end of the day, this is so strange with these closings because nobody argued about the lesser included offenses. They basically, the Commonwealth was just talking about first degree murder. When you do have some other options in here, second degree would be just basically slightly less than premeditation and with no extreme atrocity or cruelty, you could still find a second degree. Manslaughter, potentially, if you thought it was all the medication, maybe, although I don't really understand the involuntary manslaughter thing, honestly. But at the end of the day, the Commonwealth was proving her knowledge of what she was doing was wrong when that's not the standard. The standards are understanding, like a moral understanding.

0:40:40 Matt: And the defense is going on and on about proving illness when that is the first thing the Commonwealth conceded.

0:40:40 Thomas: That's It's really weird.

0:40:46 Matt: We're talking past each other. And I think Kevin Reddington has done well in a lot of ways, but I just thought this closing didn't work for me. I didn't feel like this is the way to do it. I feel like, I There are a lot of other ways to talk about this. But back to this, I'm sure. I just think like legally, just apart from the horrible facts, there's a lot to talk about. And, you know, we've done it today, but this helps.

0:41:05 Thomas: Yeah, for sure. It's good to hear someone who actually practices in the state.

0:41:08 Matt: And I do happen to live with one of the most effective experts on murder in Massachusetts. That I say that out loud, that's right, experienced murder.

0:41:13 Thomas: He lives with a murder, everybody. Can't say who it is.

0:41:16 Matt: Yeah, no, but she is extremely well-versed in the law of murder. So we've been talking about this quite a lot. Yeah.

0:41:19 Thomas: Huge body count.

0:41:20 Matt: Yeah. That's right. Well, we should move on do we have to and

0:41:23 Thomas: Good to learn more about that. Let's take a break and then talk about Milo Yiannopoulos. I can't. Yeah. I'm trying to figure out the transition. I didn't want to make light of anything, but I was like, almost as bad a person.

0:41:34 Matt: Someone fundamentally unserious so after a serious situation I

0:41:40 Thomas: Right, Matt Milo deportation. You think you've, figured you've out what's going on here?

0:41:45 Matt: Think that working through the timeline and I also want to give full credit to a journalist named jonathan gerhardsen who I've been talking to a little bit about this and did an amazing rundown of the timeline I was trying to piece the timeline together but it is the kind of thing that an actual journalist needs to do at some point I have other things to do and he's used FOIA records to come up with something pretty startling that I don't think the media And he, again, is a great reporter, but he's not an immigration lawyer. And he was asking me sort of how we can understand or interpret what we're looking at in these records. And here's what I think. I wish I didn't have to tell anybody. Excuse his power level, as the white nationalists say, and intentionally introduce more white supremacist rhetoric into the culture. Like he was talking with some hardcore, awful people in Trump's orbit in 2016, 2017. That's all you need to know about Miola Yiannopoulos as a person. That's it. And he said a lot of other things, including supporting ICE and mass deportation. But that's, at the end of the day, what he is. Awful person has fallen on hard times because he got canceled, rightfully.

0:42:47 Thomas: Matt, who canceled him? Was it the woke left or was it the right? It's a point I made a million times in the intervening 10 years or whatever it was, but nobody counts that. Nobody counts that Milo, and it's so funny too, because his whole shtick and it was around that prime time of hearing these dumb arguments that were dumb then dumb now is, speech. I'm just making arguments. I'm just making arguments, they can't have this speech. And then what did he do? Did he kill someone? Nope, he talked about awful things and said awful things about like sex with minors and stuff. So that's speech. But what happened? Why did he get canceled? Well, the right, why did he cancel culture? That's speech, can't you handle his arguments?

0:42:53 Matt: That's right, yeah. Yeah is comedy even legal I

0:43:25 Thomas: Yeah, yeah, it's like, oh, well, okay. But that, it's like, yeah. Yeah, that's you're doing the same thing with just a different line. That's all it is.

0:43:32 Matt: And I mean obviously rightfully people should be excluded from society we all agree on that

0:43:34 Thomas: I totally agree. But it's that, but also a bunch of stuff before that. It's drawing that line.

0:43:39 Matt: Yeah absolutely but white nationalist stuff actually came out I think a couple months after that and that should have been that was it I mean he's out of public life so the interesting thing though relevant to his immigration status he was on and this pains me to say he wasn't on oh one talent visa for exceptional ability uh just let that.

0:43:54 Thomas: In our country, boy, this is one of the top racist pieces of shit. Need him.

0:43:58 Matt: I mean, the standard is top 5%. So maybe, maybe 0

0:44:01 Thomas: He's a one of one, like the biggest asshole in the world. Yeah.

0:44:05 Matt: Yeah, sure. I'll give him that. Fired him. He lost his talent visa and he married a US citizen in 2017. So very interesting timeline here, because as you may remember, we've talked about this, you get a two -year permanent resident card when you marry a US citizen. Play a quick clip here from Tom Homan, who I'm sorry to make everybody listen to Tom Homen, but has a point here, Milo, about ICE and their capacity to lie about people. It's astonishing. I

0:44:28 Clip: Overstayed his visa. I believe his visit was a visa, but I'm sure. But he overstayed the visa, he was ordered to appear in immigration court, he didn't show up, the judge ordered him deported. So once ICE gets an ordered deportation from a federal judge, their job is to extradite him and that's what they did. He had his due process orderly removed by a federal Judge and ICE removed him. It's that simple.

0:44:50 Matt: Everything he just said is correct, except for the first part. Now, again, we don't know because of these obviously secret records. But from what I've been able to piece together, he did apply for permanent residency and he claims that he had a two year green card through his spouse. Now, this is where I'm going to say some things and I'm gonna say this is my speculation based on everything that I've seen so far. I have a couple of conclusions and I will get into these more on Wednesday when we really go through the evidence and we'll watch his interview and I can show you where I think he's lying and yeah, exactly. I mean, pretty much very little of what he says, I believe, especially about his own case, because one thing to note, he does not have a lawyer who's been appearing on his behalf in public. I don't think he can afford one. He's in incredible amounts of debt, like unbelievable amounts of debt. Was a piece I would like to from Hope Not Hate that went into the mound of debt that he's in. And it mentioned that he had a very expensive apartment in Doral, Florida, because the notice that Tom Hummond was talking about was sent to Doral. We'll get to that in a

0:45:13 Thomas: His lips are moving.

0:45:36 Matt: Minute.

0:45:36 Thomas: Little drow.

0:45:37 Matt: Doral? Yeah. It's probably Doral! Yeah, is that it? It. Allegation, we don't have the notice to appear that says the exact reason that they're trying to deport him. But here's my theory. And I think this is pretty credible. 2017, he gets a two -year green card, and then he has to renew it. And I think at the time of renewal that they found that it was a fraudulent marriage. Believe that is what happened. Now, I story that's out there right now that he wants you to believe, and that the right has been pushing, is that he got loomered. That Laura Loomer reported him to ICE and got him deported. Claims that ICE was was really intent on doing this, or at least the top in D .C. was intent on doing this. They were getting calls from D. C. that they're monitoring it. They got him out as quickly as possible. Reason that he had to go as quickly possible is because he already had a deportation order, unlike people who get picked up. So to answer that question from people, he already had an order of removal because he didn't go to immigration court. When I heard this story is, why was Milo Yiannopoulos in immigration court? Because I knew he was on a talent visa before, unfortunately. I didn't know he was a married U .S. citizen, but I figured this is not the kind of guy who would allow himself to fall out of status. He's pretty prominent. He can pay lawyers. He can figure this out. People always have options in the immigration system.

0:46:36 Matt: He was rich at some point. We have since learned from the divorce filings with his spouse is going to say right now, I believe his spouse, I think his husband is telling the truth, that because it's not much of a stretch to imagine that this was an extremely abusive marriage, that this is a marriage that he felt physically and mentally abused and emotionally. And there is a text in which Milo says to him that this was only a green card marriage anyway, in writing. And now again, that might be something you say out of spite.

0:47:01 Thomas: If you're a piece of shit in an argument yeah yeah

0:47:03 Matt: Piers Morgan asked him in this interview about whether he's gay, he's been denying that he's gay, basically.

0:47:07 Thomas: He did he renounced his wedding or whatever he did oh my

0:47:10 Matt: Says, I don't do that sex stuff. That's his answer to this question, which is, I guess he's just completely asexual, which is fine. That's a thing, but I don'T think that's what he was doing. Again I'm not going to speculate on sexuality I can just speculate on his immigration case uh point is that you can imagine a situation because the timing after the two years when he's trying to renew and know we don't know kind of what's going on in some of the intervening years but his spouse may have reported him may have report that was a fraudulent marriage the immigration services may have figured out other under other means because they have lots of ways of figuring out that this may be they hadn't been living together for a long time that there might be something else going on that they tried to do a joint petition

0:47:13 Thomas: Dude guy's a psychopath incapable of love yeah

0:47:43 Matt: Very likely also that maybe they've actually seen him on TV or he tried to do it by himself and say because a divorce proceedings are somewhat recent. But, you know, anyway, it's unlikely. But my point is that people don't end up in deportation proceedings unless they get arrested and are going through the criminal punishment system or they're in the wrong place, wrong time, you Know, with somebody else. And like a lot of my clients, I've been in proceedings because they have somebody living in their house as removal order and ICE comes to get them. But just in the ordinary course of business, this white British man that is well-known to MAGA would not just get into removal proceedings. It just doesn't happen.

0:48:13 Thomas: So I think everybody like me and everybody who's not you doesn't understand immigration stuff we just blend that in as like oh well he was overstayed or something so there's a court thing he missed but you're saying like what would have normally happened if he's just overstayed this visa thing so

0:48:23 Matt: The judge got him to to the court. Would have gotten away with it because he wouldn't be in immigration court. And I mean, maybe they noticed on the way out, but they wouldn't do anything about it. I mean he'd have to present himself. Solid movement

0:48:38 Thomas: Even in trump's america they're not like actively looking for this exact thing really

0:48:42 Matt: I mean, and if that's the case if he ever stayed a tourist visa I think he came back in on his conditional permanent residency but he might not if he may have actually gotten a tourist visa I think the reason he's being charged that way is because they're saying the entire permanent residency was fraudulent uh and then everything that followed from that was I don't know we're going to find out we'll

0:48:56 Thomas: But your point is regardless if it was just overstaying your visa there he's not an immigration court

0:49:01 Matt: Wouldn't be caught unless he got arrested for something else like

0:49:04 Thomas: For something else or this marriage thing you're talking about

0:49:06 Matt: And we know I checked there's no there's no evidence and I'm sure people would be happy to report TMZ would tell us if he had an arrest I

0:49:07 Thomas: That's True, I feel like that would be known yeah yep

0:49:13 Matt: Looking, I assumed he had a disorderly or something, but no, nothing. And has to have gotten into removal proceedings, which means the other way that people get into removal procedures, if it's not through the criminal punishment system is through referral from USCIS after denial of an application. And the only application that we know of that he filed after his talent visa was the marriage case. The part where I have to talk about Laura Loomer. Loomer called this, unfortunately, would not believe anything that Laura Loomer ever says, obviously. But in this case, she does know some of these people. And she had said many months ago that Milo Yiannopoulos is undocumented and he's in removal proceedings. And I didn't even see this. And if I'd seen it at the time, I would have been like, okay, Laura, sure. I mean, whatever. But she was right. And She was saying at the time that I believe he's In removal proceedings because of marriage fraud. And that's the story basically in the conservative street.

0:49:55 Thomas: I don't know how important it is to again too but why are they at odds because like they're both garbage people okay

0:49:59 Matt: Yeah, there's some, I guess, because he was talking trash about Trump. And she's very happy that he's been deported. She wants him deported

0:50:04 Thomas: Well one way or the other one garbage monster hates another garbage monster and she she also I think takes pleasure in enacting punishment or whatever on people she doesn't like huh

0:50:07 Matt: Let him fight. Again, this is speculation. I'm going to be very careful to say this. Based on all the evidence that's out there, I'm not just working from Laura Loomer's opinion. I don't want to come to you with that. I'm just saying the logical course of events, it's very unlikely this man would be in removal proceedings for no reason at all. Makes sense, knowing that we know that there's at least one text out there where he said it was a green card marriage. Other people in his life believe it was green card marriage. And if ICE got wind of that, or USCIS got wind to that, they would put him in removal proceedings and let a judge decide. Is a long process when you're denying. Now, he wasn't put in removal proceedings till August of last year, which is an interesting gap in time, which makes me wonder if somebody dropped a dime. I don't know what he was doing all that time. Maybe he really was overstated and undocumented. He says he wasn'T. I Don't know. But he also could could have been litigating the denial of the 10 -year card, the extension from the two -year card that he got from originally. He's put in removal proceedings, and this is the part I really want to talk about more on Wednesday, but I think that he couldn't afford a lawyer, and I think he filed something to move the case up himself.

0:51:07 Matt: Gerhardsen found the records of this case. Immigration court, there's a way you can do this. I really appreciate his guidance on this because you can go through FOIA and you can basically, if you know enough about purse, somebody's, you Know Their Name and Birthday, you can start to isolate things that have happened. And he found the docket in his immigration court case, which is amazing. Somebody filed a motion to advance because he was originally scheduled to appear in immigration court in 2028, which was very common when you're put in, and that's three years from when he was put in. Filed a emotion to advance and asked for an earlier hearing, and it was changed in November. And then he became a victim of the system that we're calling the Mega Master, which which is the master calendar hearing that they're scheduling within two or three weeks spontaneously, basically, to get people in and get them deported. Because if you don't show up to to immigration court, you get deported automatically. That's just what happens. There's no question. It's an absentia. If the judge finds you got the notice and you didn't come, you're deported, you don'T get to present your case. Other theory is that he requested this court be moved up, and you would be watching it at that point, especially he claims he had a lawyer, which I don't know that I believe, under the circumstances, because there's not one entered in the case. It looks like somebody might have filed a motion per se, which would make sense that he would put in that request. He had somebody advising him. Gets moved up and then it gets moved back up again to July 22nd and he doesn't show up on July 22. So by the time that he was flying to New Orleans, he had a 26 -day -old removal order. He was flying around the deportation order and New Orleans happens to be next to the largest ICE detention facility in the country. Said he was going to New Orlando to attend a Kanye concert because he's been working for Kanye the last couple of years. I didn't know that. It makes sense. That makes a lot of sense. Have a suspicion that he may have just known about this and was recklessly flying around anyway, or maybe he didn't care. Maybe he's in a bad state of mind. Maybe he wanted to get ahead of the narrative and wanted to say that he got deported because the American right has turned on him, or to get attention because that's his entire deal. That's what he's here for, is to get intention. And we've just given him more than I want to, but I want talk about this in the context of what is going on in the system right now and all the weird quirks that can happen. Need to be aware that if you don't show up to your immigration hearing, you will be deported automatically. And I'll go through some of the evidence and the documentation that we have on Wednesday, because I do think it's actually worth spotlighting, not him, but spotlighting the situation, because a lot going on here. And he's allowed to continue his narrative that he just is an innocent victim of Laura Loomer and the Trump administration turning on him, thinkthat's a less interesting story than what might have actually happened here, than what looks like it happened. Because I can tell just from the interview that he did with Piers Morgan that he's lying in several places that matter. So where I'm at with it right now.

0:51:29 Thomas: Okay was the nuance but I I didn't understand what, okay,

0:53:25 Matt: Was caught because he flew commercial inside the United States, which so everybody knows, TSA and ISA are known to be working together for quite a while now. You have a fresh removal order from less than a month ago, they're going to get you. That's going to happen. Your name is going to pop up as soon as you buy a ticket and you're in the manifest. And so I just can't imagine that he didn't know he had an order And that he didn't know that he was going to be subject to arrest. I possible that he was at least reckless about it, that he thought he was gonna let it happen if it happened. Asked to move his own hearing up, and I don't think he wouldn't have been tracking it. He claims he didn t get the notice to get

0:53:47 Thomas: So you think he wanted a kind of a, oh, so that part, you're saying he has to move it up in order to make this happen, oh wow, so

0:54:01 Matt: It going and then not go. And the other thing is, if it came out, exactly. And this is a theory, but imagine if Milo had actually gone to his removal hearing. Somebody would have noticed. I t think it would have gotten out. They re secret hearings. But I feel like at some point, somebody s life would have been like, yeah, that guy just went to a deportation hearing. Can you believe it? I don't think he wanted that whole story out because then you have to talk about why he was in removal proceedings. Now we're talking about the deportation and we're not talking about why.

0:54:04 Thomas: He can juice it for the attention or whatever he wants, yeah, okay boy, that's interesting, yeah Yeah, that makes sense.

0:54:26 Matt: A good at narrative. I will give him that. He's very good at negative. And I think he's, he can control his own in this case. And that's, that's what I'm working with.

0:54:29 Thomas: He's a lying psychopath. Give him credit. Wow.

0:54:33 Matt: The judge generally will not find, and I've heard this judge especially will not, find that you did not get notice unless they're sure you've got notice. In which case, you know, they sent a notice. It didn't bounce. You can check your own, your own case online when you know your alien number, which he definitely did. You You can check it anytime you want to. You don't need the written notice anymore. But there are requirements about written notice. And if there's any question you didn't get it, and especially in a high profile case like this, I would think they would have not issued the order. So where I'm at, for sure. We'll watch the interview.

0:54:56 Thomas: Okay. Well, more on that on Wednesday. That's, uh, wow. Let's talk about it in a moose douche. That's gonna be really interesting. All right, let's take our last break, and then we're running out of time. It's so fun, uh... getting to sit in the room with you. We'll let's, take our las break, then I get to hear an in -person footnote? Can't wait. Wait all matt

0:55:07 Matt: Good times. You got it. Right. Here I am in my bare feet doing the footnote. All as everyone, as we talked about up front, knows, Elon Musk bought Twitter for a ridiculous amount of money with the help of the Saudis. I think we're the second biggest investors. People should know that.

0:55:28 Thomas: Me oh plus we don't know necessarily who helped him because the way they did that

0:55:30 Matt: Everybody was involved. That's right. Yep. Of course, with the joke price of $420 ,000, right? $440 ,000. Very funny.

0:55:36 Thomas: We have to admit that's so funny oh my oh let that sink in oh man sorry

0:55:40 Matt: Which is, it never ends. The comedy. Guy, just, I mean, comedy is legal again, folks. It really is.

0:55:49 Thomas: Peter just edited out 10 solid minutes of us laughing at the hilarious jokes that he makes

0:55:53 Matt: Just still better than ever. The man just never misses. Talked about up front, he completely abandoned and basically shit on the trademark of Twitter and said X is the thing now. He'd always wanted to call PayPal X, which is very stupid. X the everything app. He wants to try to integrate it into your entire life. Created a Nazi platform instead, which I don't think was not the plan. The question becomes, could somebody just call themselves Twitter and use the little blue bird as their icon? And calling it the Bluebird Project, but they've already registered twitter .new. And registered because why not? I might as well get my name. You never know, it might take off. I'm not endorsing it. I don't know. But, you hurt to have Matt Cameron just right there for you. A listener, Jenessa Seymour sent us this. She's more of an expert on trademark and copyright issues than I am, but why this is a footnote. But I took a look at the suit because I thought it was pretty interesting. X immediately went and sued, which is very strange because one of their arguments is about confusion, about brand confusion for a brand you no longer own or

0:56:06 Thomas: Yeah such yeah

0:56:48 Matt: Want. Like, it's such a weird argument because clearly they're trying not to confuse. They're saying, we are Twitter now. Want you to believe that. If you, in so many different ways, abandon the mark and then you come out and say that, I don't get it.

0:57:00 Thomas: That's interesting I mean on one hand I have two two thoughts which is x's whole thing is having to say we're not twitter we're x all the time which

0:57:07 Matt: They went to great lengths.

0:57:08 Thomas: You could say is a sign that they're abandoning that I guess you could also argue that would also make make sense if they were trying to like oh people are mistaking us for something no yeah no it's like you're abandoning that trademark you

0:57:20 Matt: They did register all versions of Twitter, tweet, everything else. They tried to claim it for themselves, this Bluebird project. Was a TRO that went in an order to deny the applications, and a judge Judge has temporarily reversed that at least. There was an oral argument in April of 2026 on this case where Judge Connolly's found essentially that X had not shown credible evidence that they're still using the tweet or bird logo obviously and suggested they might have abandoned there's no written ruling yet um it says that's still pending and the cancellation is suspended pending the action so they've got this website up and they're trying to get registrations yeah

0:57:51 Thomas: Changed it to x .com and make it redirects to that like they very much have abandoned that yeah

0:57:55 Matt: So No question and for some reason X goes on for pages about how the marks are identical and they using the same name and everything that's the point that's what they want to do and they were saying that pretty clearly but abandonment is obviously the question and you know x obviously has a real problem here I think potentially um I'm sure Jenessa would have a lot more to say about this but I just thought it was an interesting question and it's really unusual that somebody would abandon such a good brand as you said and then try it somebody else would just pick it up like that I mean imagine Coca-Cola just being like yeah never mind you know it's called jorts or whatever I don't know but joel yeah that's been done I don't know I say I don't know where jorts came from, but that'd be a terrible name for coal. No question.

0:58:23 Thomas: Cola yeah yeah shorts cola now I want it that's the funny thing about our system is you can't just sit on something like that like if you're not using it I

0:58:36 Matt: And trying to claim harm here somehow when The harm is actually that they're going to get confused with their previous brand. According to them previously, their whole thing was that we don't want people to call this anymore. So what are you doing, Bex? I something to it with the copyright part of it rather than the trademark issue. If they just sued on the the copyright alone like there might have actually been yeah

0:58:55 Thomas: I I always forget the difference of those you

0:58:56 Matt: And that's that's more of a question but uh you know you don't have abandonment in that case because you're just using a copyright that's still registered to somebody and you could have had a takedown but they went for the full frontal just like assault on this thing I don't know why they necessarily did that but I'm not a copyright Lawyer, thanks yeah yeah I mean again they have lots of money and lawyers to Throw around at it but case here for them is they get actually an actual written decision which which says they have abandoned because then that's pretty much it for use of the mark.

0:59:10 Thomas: X okay yeah that's

0:59:22 Matt: Interesting stuff, something we'll just take a look at, but a Little company called Twitter, check it out. There's also an issue that I thought was very strange that Stephen Coates, one of the attorneys for the Bluebird project was previously IP counsel for Twitter, which seems like a real problem. Feel like they could really go for that. Let's say this is way too much of a conflict of interest. You know way too much about us, but Seems like a risk on his part, but that's his problem.

0:59:21 Thomas: Awesome yeah I that's Love when bad things happen to Elon Musk, so I hope he loses all that. I know if it's like different Nazis that are trying to do this other one. Hopefully they're cool people. But good yeah, for Twitter. New.

0:59:50 Matt: Miss that little bluebird. I'd be happy to have it back just for that. Here we go. I show.

0:59:54 Thomas: Right, well, that's our show. Yeah, it's

0:59:56 Matt: We should go get dinner.

0:59:56 Thomas: Been so fun. Let's go, everybody. Saddle up. Let's get on out of here. Thanks so much for listening. Matt, for inviting me to your way too hot office.

1:00:05 Matt: Great to literally see you.

1:00:08 Thomas: And we'll see you next time everybody

1:00:14 Clip: This has been Opening Arguments, produced by Thomas and Lydia Smith, with editing help from Peter Baird. The intro is by Thomas Smith. This outro is by Matt Cameron. Support the show at patreon .com slash law. Contact us through Patreon or openarguments at gmail .com. Make sure to follow our blue sky at OpenArgs. But most of all, please share the show. Thanks for listening.

1:00:46 Matt: Comedy even legal I

1:00:50 Thomas: Gonna rename it to like splamp them and

1:00:53 Matt: Comedy is legal again, folks. It really is.