Client CAUGHT LYING in Court — Her Own Lawyer SNAPS Mid-Trial: “I’M DONE DEFENDING HER!”

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-26

[00:00:00]So, am I free to go?

[00:00:02]>> No.

[00:00:03]>> So, why am I not free to go if she just said she ain't got a bond?

[00:00:08]>> Pardon?

[00:00:09]>> Why am I not free to go? Why do I got to serve time when I'm not even?

[00:00:14]>> You have a bond on the case, ma'am.

[00:00:16]>> So, if I get my money, I can get out.

[00:00:19]>> But she just said it was no bond.

[00:00:21]>> Post bond, you can get out.

[00:00:22]>> So, I'd rather post bond. So, where do I go from here?

[00:00:25]>> I need to post the bond.

[00:00:27]>> Okay. What's the bond? cuz she just you just asked her the same thing.

[00:00:33]>> It's five $500.

[00:00:35]>> Yes, ma'am.

[00:00:36]>> Okay. So, I read the proposed bond. Do I go through there?

[00:00:41]>> Good morning. Assistant Lieutenender Lauren Perry on behalf Well, not on behalf of Miss Brown. You know, we are an attorney of record on this case. When I did um meet with Miss Brown, she informed me she wants to represent herself.

[00:00:56]>> Your name?

[00:00:56]>> Alexis Brown.

[00:00:59]Is that correct that you want to represent yourself?

[00:01:01]>> Yes, it is.

[00:01:03]>> All right. So in this matter, Brown, I do have to inform you that you that the complaint in this case alleges owner about June 8th, 2024 location of 30001 Woodland Hills Drive in Pittsfield, Washington County, state of Michigan that you did to commit the offense of assault and or assault and battery against a Latasha Browning. Do you understand what you're charged with?

[00:01:31]>> Yes, I do. That is a misdemeanor, punishable by 93 days in jail, $500 fine plus court cost. Do you understand the maximum penalties?

[00:01:40]>> Yes, I do.

[00:01:40]>> There are certain things that are fraught in self-representation um in terms of understanding the Michigan court rules and in terms of the court procedure. You would need to understand that if you would like to represent yourself that you would be held to the same standard as the any other attorney. Mhm.

[00:01:59]>> The court will not be assisting you in any fashion whatsoever. You understand that?

[00:02:04]>> Okay. So, the time that I served, don't that counts for the 93 days?

[00:02:09]>> I'm sorry.

[00:02:10]>> The time that I served already, don't that counts for the 93 days?

[00:02:15]>> I don't know how much time you >> I served 30 days already.

[00:02:19]>> And if you served 30 days, it may count.

[00:02:22]I don't I'm trying to look at what your bond is on this case. What do you have a bond?

[00:02:34]And then no contact with the victim as well >> and the monetary amount >> 5,000 10% then it should count. Yes ma'am.

[00:02:45]>> And so I have a question. So when I was arrested I wasn't actually told my rights. So ain't that's against the law that you was deterred your rights when you arrested me. Well, not you, but the officer.

[00:02:58]>> I cannot >> You can't do nothing about it right now.

[00:03:01]>> All right. I just want to state that.

[00:03:02]>> I can't answer that.

[00:03:03]>> I just want to state it.

[00:03:05]>> All right.

[00:03:06]>> Okay.

[00:03:06]>> It's on record, right?

[00:03:08]>> So, >> okay.

[00:03:10]>> What do we What do you want this set for, ma'am?

[00:03:19]>> I mean, your honor, we have no offer at this time. Um, >> do you want it set for a trial, ma'am?

[00:03:26]Sure.

[00:03:31]I guess if if I guess >> you want a jury trial or a non-jury trial.

[00:03:36]>> It doesn't really matter.

[00:03:38]>> Well, you got to make a decision, man.

[00:03:43]>> If it got to go to trial, then it got to go to trial.

[00:03:46]>> Okay. Do you want a jury trial or no trial?

[00:03:50]>> It doesn't matter.

[00:03:52]>> You have to make a decision, man.

[00:03:54]>> It could have a jury. Fine. That's fine with me.

[00:03:57]>> Jury final settlement conference in this matter will be set 17th, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.

[00:04:11]Three selection in this matter. October 20th, 2025 at 8:30. Both of those proceedings are in person.

[00:04:28]Thank you.

[00:04:30]>> So, am I free to go?

[00:04:32]>> No.

[00:04:33]>> So, why am I not free to go if she just said she ain't got a bond?

[00:04:38]>> Pardon?

[00:04:39]>> Why am I not free to go? Why do I got to serve time when I'm not even?

[00:04:44]>> You have a bond on the case, ma'am.

[00:04:46]>> So, if I get my money, I can get out.

[00:04:49]>> But she just said it was no bond.

[00:04:51]>> Post bond, you can get out. So, I'd rather post bond. So, where do I go from here?

[00:04:55]>> I need to post the bond.

[00:04:57]>> Okay. What's the bond? Cuz she just you just asked her the same thing.

[00:05:03]>> It's five $500.

[00:05:05]>> Yes, ma'am.

[00:05:06]>> Okay. So, I rather post bond. Where do I go from there?

[00:05:09]>> And you can go post bond.

[00:05:10]>> Okay. Thank you.

[00:05:27]It's your fault, parenting.

[00:05:31]Your fault.

[00:05:36]You just You just like suckered me into that. That's it's >> you got up there and and then just said, "Well, we're the attorney record, but >> Oh, we're starting off the morning with a series of bad decisions already. This is wonderful."

[00:05:55]>> I know, but they're all by the whole McDonald's thing and then this and >> Okay, let's try this one >> before he makes more statements.

[00:06:06]>> And I did record the >> false. I recorded the call.

[00:06:10]>> I recorded the call.

[00:06:11]>> In his best interest, he might want to listen to this call before he makes any further statements. Listen, >> you don't know what? That's the third time you've done it. You're gone, Mr. Allen. Take him. You better get Mr. Burgess down here because I want to hear those calls because he's interfered with it.

[00:06:26]>> And Mary Rubio, on behalf of Mr. Lee, I am standing in for the attorney of record, David Burgess, um, with Mr. Lee's consent to my knowledge. Is that correct, sir?

[00:06:37]Uh, >> that is okay for me to stand in for you right now.

[00:06:40]>> Yes.

[00:06:41]>> Okay. Could you please state your name?

[00:06:44]>> What is that noise?

[00:06:48]>> Shouldn't you check? I don't feel safe.

[00:06:53]>> Why are you just pointing?

[00:06:56]>> What?

[00:06:57]>> Don't stop at some point.

[00:06:58]>> You stop at some point.

[00:07:00]>> I feel very safe.

[00:07:03]>> Oh, I know. He's like, "You're No, you are all over it."

[00:07:11]>> All right, go ahead. What are we doing?

[00:07:13]>> Well, I honor things. Um, first of all, I um I've been in communication with Mr. Burgess uh and Mr. Arabo, who is representing the victim of the case, Mr. Quasni. Um, apparently, Mr. Lee called Mr. Bravo and offer to in exchange of a pending case where Mr. Quasny is uh the defendant of an AMV against Mr. Lee. Um Mr. Lee contacted uh Mr. Robbo and offered to essentially not testify in that case if Mr. Quasny agreed not to testify in this case. Uh there are statements that are essentially saying in exchange for Mr. Claus me victim in this case not testifying. Um I will also not testify. That is highly concerning.

[00:08:05]Of course I was given this information yesterday. Um I asked Mr. Aravo to forward that call to myself, Mr. Burgess and the officer in charge because we want it documented for potential additional charges. Um but this all happened transpired yesterday. We got the reporting as of this morning. With that said, um of course I think it's appropriate to have an adjournment. Mr. just be greased with that.

[00:08:29]>> Hold it. But does that recording indicate that?

[00:08:33]>> Yes, your has be >> I myself have not listened to the recording. I was just asked to stand in on behalf of of Mr. Burgess. He's at a hearing in Lancing. However, I did speak to Mr. Lee about it today. Mr. Lee indicates to um he indicated some of the content of the conversation to me. He also indicated, just FYI, that he he himself recorded it.

[00:08:58]Just so I have this right, the defendant because of something else is urging, enticing, or in some other way interfering with testimony witnesses in this case.

[00:09:14]>> I can't agree to to that characterization because I haven't heard it. I don't know.

[00:09:18]>> Well, you want to listen to because that's what that's what I'm being told.

[00:09:22]But yes, I and I understand I understand that that is um what's being presented.

[00:09:28]I also want to indicate that.

[00:09:31]>> Go ahead.

[00:09:31]>> Go ahead. I'm sorry. Um Mr. Lee has indicated to me some things. I have advised him to be careful of what he would want to say to your honor, but he seems to feel that he needed to make that phone call because he wants to move to have Mr. Burgess removed and he wants to get a different attorney. Mr. Lee may has indicated to me he also wants to address the court. I again did advise him I would not go into the content of that conversation as there could be potential pending new charges. With that said, Mr. Lee, what is it you wanted to say?

[00:10:10]>> Yes. Judge, I indicated to what's your name?

[00:10:14]>> Mary Rubio. Miss Rubio. to Miss Rubio that for a little bit over a month, I contacted my attorney, Mr. Burgess, and I instructed him to contact the lawyers uh from both sides, the prosecution and the other side that represented Mr. Quasny, and I instructed him to um offer a plea or to negotiate some sort of settlement and he indicated that he would do that.

[00:10:53]He indicated um that he had done that.

[00:10:56]He indicated that he had reached out to uh Mr. Arao and the prosecutor um regarding making some sort of plea agreement. Him and I discussed what that could be. And so now to fast forward yesterday I contacted Mr. Burgess and I said, "Hey, have you reached out or have you heard anything from Mr. Arabo and the prosecutor?" He said and he indicated that he had not heard anything and that he had reached out to both attorneys multiple times.

[00:11:36]I knew that to be a lie. I suspected that to be a lie.

[00:11:41]And I knew that if I were to have him or to ask you to have him removed or substituted that I would have to prove under Strickland versus Washington that he >> I don't know. Are you a lawyer?

[00:11:54]>> I was um >> Mr. Lean. No. To my knowledge. No.

[00:11:58]>> So I knew that I had to prove that he was ineffective. I knew that I had to prove that our breakdown was egregious.

[00:12:03]So I recorded the call myself and I called Mr. Arabo and I asked if Mr. Mr. Burgess reached out and discussed any sort of plea negotiations.

[00:12:15]Mr. Arabo said no sir, he had not had any communications with my attorney. So I confirmed with Mr. Arao that he had not received any communications about any kind of negotiations with any kind of plea agreements on my behalf.

[00:12:33]>> I'm so sorry to leave before he makes more statements. And I did record the call.

[00:12:38]>> I recorded the callizing himself.

[00:12:40]>> I recorded the call.

[00:12:41]>> In his best interest, he might want to listen to this call before he makes any further statements. In the call that was sent to us, there is indication not there's no discussion of a plea, not what was sent to me. There is that was reported by Mr. Orabo. There's very clear that there will be no testimony in his case if Mr. Collins agrees not to testify in this case. So, I have the text messages.

[00:13:03]>> Statements are made to the court, which is not necessarily a problem for me, but I want to make sure that Mr. Lee's rights are preserved.

[00:13:08]>> I have the text message.

[00:13:09]>> I want to listen.

[00:13:10]>> You don't know what that's the third time you've done it. You're gone. Mr. Allen, take him.

[00:13:16]>> You better get Mr. Burgess down here because I want to hear those calls because if he's interfered with it, >> that's going to be a whole other issue.

[00:13:23]>> I will try to reach him, but I know he is in Lancing, so I'm not certain.

[00:13:26]>> Oh, even if he appears by Has Mr. Burches heard the calls? I don't know, your honor. They were sent this morning.

[00:13:32]I I asked Mr. Robin to send them right away yesterday and we received them this morning. Uh Mr. Rob can also be available via Zoom if necessary.

[00:13:41]>> All right. I I'm just letting you know that what I'm hearing is extremely disturbing.

[00:13:47]>> I completely understand that.

[00:13:49]>> And so I'm going to I'm going to give an opportunity for the defense to give me some explanation, but I'm inclined at this point. I'm going to hold him in custody. I plan at this point to revoke this bond.

[00:14:01]>> I understand.

[00:14:02]>> Okay.

[00:14:03]>> Okay.

[00:14:04]>> Thank you.

[00:14:30]Just listen to it.

[00:14:34]>> Have you heard him or >> just now and I listen to it together?

[00:14:38]>> Okay. All right. I'll recall that >> and then everyone else >> Andrew Mr. Kennedy.

[00:15:14]>> Okay.

[00:15:15]>> So, this one.

[00:15:18]This one. We're going >> No, no, no, no. This This one.

[00:15:24]>> That's So, just hold down. Yep.

[00:15:27]>> It's between these two.

[00:15:29]>> What happened?

[00:15:33]>> That was at 2:00. We haven't gotten there yet.

[00:15:35]>> Oh, >> I haven't talked to you about those at all yet.

[00:15:38]>> Ow. Okay.

[00:15:41]>> All right. But this one has one and then we got to bring Lee back out.

[00:15:47]So, who's on this one?

[00:15:50]>> This is four witnesses with Miss Tanha and I believe Miss Aro.

[00:15:55]>> Okay. So then this is good nine.

[00:15:58]>> Good night is Bquette.

[00:16:00]>> How many witnesses on that one witness?

[00:16:03]>> Okay. Get Mr. Burkett in here. We'll handle that one. I'm going to take a brief break. We'll handle that one. Then I'll get Mr. Lee out. Okay.

[00:16:13]>> Deal with Lee.

[00:16:14]>> That's my order.

[00:16:19]>> My court is Larry Lee.

[00:16:23]>> Good afternoon. Rich, assistant prosecuting attorney on behalf of people.

[00:16:26]>> Have we got your second >> and Mary Rubio uh again on behalf of Mr. Lee who is making his way to the podium.

[00:16:40]>> There's additional counsel that is on.

[00:16:42]>> This is the exact moment where the legal gravity of the situation becomes impossible to ignore. Up until now, both sides have been arguing over intent, communication breakdowns, and competing explanations for what happened during the phone conversation. But the court is now narrowing its focus onto something much more specific, whether there was an attempted exchange involving testimony.

[00:17:05]Legally, that matters because courts take any attempt to influence witness participation extremely seriously.

[00:17:12]Emotionally, the atmosphere in a room has changed, too. Earlier, there was confusion and disagreement, but now the tension feels heavier because everyone understand that potential consequences may be growing. Here's the question for everyone watching. Does intent matter more, or do the actual words and actions matter more once a conversation crosses into dangerous territory? Keep watching because the judge is about to stop debating possibilities and start making decisions.

[00:17:39]>> Assuming everybody, everybody except the court has heard the phone call.

[00:17:45]it. What I heard was um the recording the prosecutor gave me, which appears to be a less than twominut portion of a phone call. I think she would agree it's not an entire phone call.

[00:17:55]>> That's correct, your honor. It's what Mr. Rob sent me uh as well as Mr. Burgess um and law enforcement as of this morning.

[00:18:03]>> All right. And that portion of the phone calls the court is to understand is basically this defendant speaking with is it directly with the victim in this case?

[00:18:20]>> No attorney with the attorney or the victim.

[00:18:26]>> All right. and basically offering to not provide testimony in another case if if his client doesn't provide testimony in this criminal proceed.

[00:18:39]>> That is how I would characterize your honor if Mr. Rob has additional information or different information. Um >> yes, Mr. >> Yeah. Yeah. Just to clarify the record, that's that's a portion of a phone call because I didn't anticipate to record the entire thing. I didn't know who was calling me and then once I realized what this was uh which is an attempt to extort and use this other case that he filed against the victim in this matter to use as leverage to have this conversation at a future point in time.

[00:19:14]Um I I was quick enough to get on my computer and record it um so that the court is aware of what's going on um in the matter where I represent um Mr. Quasny who's the victim in this matter which is the first matter uh before the court.

[00:19:33]>> Your honor, if I may, I really object to that characterization that it was an attempt an attempt to extort. I've spoken to Mr. Lee at length um about the purpose of the phone call. I also listened to the portion of the phone call. Perhaps the court could listen to it. Um I do not believe that that was uh what was happening at all. And plus, I don't think there he um there was nothing on there that indicated he was trying to extort this attorney or the complaining witness. Frankly, what Mr. Lee um has alleged to me is that he and Mr. Burgess have basically had a breakdown of communication that he's spoken to Mr. Burgess multiple times asking him to advocate on his behalf to the prosecutor as well as to this other attorney um to try to come up with what he has called not being a lawyer using the words a settlement agreement or a plea negotiation. That's what he said to me. And that he had the feeling that Mr. Burgess had not in fact made this phone call. So he then called this attorney and right in the phone call he >> because it would have been unethical for Mr. Bur call >> to try to say my client won't testify in this c in this other matter >> of course >> it did right >> that's Mr. Burgess may not have done >> and that may very well be but my but Mr. Um, Lee indicates that, and I haven't seen these, he indicates that he has text messages back and forth with Mr. Burgess and that Mr. Burgess quote lied to him about whether or not he made these phone calls. So, he indicates the main reason that he wanted to call.

[00:21:19]>> That would be irrelevant.

[00:21:21]>> I know that, Judge. Trust me, I I know that, but I just wanted to make a record.

[00:21:27]>> Well, could I just finish though? Mr. >> Let her finish.

[00:21:30]>> Mr. Lee indicated the main purpose of the phone call was for him to find out whether this attorney could verify whether Mr. Burgess called him. If you listen to the call, the portion of this call, it's literally on there. He says it it starts out with him saying something about plea plea agreements.

[00:21:49]It's the call it's interrupted and I I believe because council didn't realize he was going to need to record this. But anyway, it starts out with him Mr. Lee saying something about plea agreement, settlement agreement.

[00:22:01]Was there any did my lawyer, did Mr. Burgess call you to try to, you know, see if maybe if I wouldn't testify and then your client wouldn't testify? Yes, he says that. But then he goes on to say because my lawyer said he called you and then this attorney um confirms what Mr. Lee was trying to find out. And this attorney says, "No, no, no, no, no. You see how easy it was to reach me. I didn't talk to anybody named Burgess.

[00:22:28]That's what he says. So, I'm just indicating that Mr. Lee states that was the main purpose of his call cuz he claims he wanted to come in here today and tell your honor that he did not want to have Mr. Burgess represent him anymore because he feels Mr. Burgess is lying to him. I'm just representing to you what Mr. Lee has told me.

[00:22:48]>> Your honor, if I may, >> I'd like to say something.

[00:22:51]>> Mr. Robbo, it's my turn. One moment. Uh, your honor, >> because apparently that's how it works in this courtroom. Tana says it's her turn, so it's her turn. Go ahead, Miss T.

[00:22:59]>> Mr. Rob's trouble with >> That's only because she's there and I'm not and I'm not.

[00:23:04]>> M, your honor, I I don't really quite frankly care what's going on with the client relationship with Mr. Burgess uh or or planner office making about extortion. That that's not something that people are going to get involved at this stage. What I'm concerned about is there is a clear difference between a plea negotiation and not test two witnesses not testifying. One of them being Mr. Lee, the other one being Mr. Qu not testifying in exchange for something. And I agree that the court should just listen to the call rather than us going around calling it different things. Um what's clear to me is that there is an offer to not testify in exchange for Mr. Clausy not testifying in this case before this court. That is what I'm hearing on that call. That is what's concerning the people and that's what may bring future charges. We're in an early stages. This needs to go to law enforcement. It has gone to law enforcement now and we can follow up.

[00:24:00]>> Mr. Rama, >> your honor, uh, as you know, I'm a defense attorney. I think it's a Miss Rubio is really grasping at straws here uh to try to help her client. Um, but here's here's what it is. It's not a plea. We heard her say plea. Plea plea.

[00:24:14]A plea means a reduction to something other than what he's being charged with, not a dismissal, which is clearly clearly being indicated in this. Second, what's happened here is you could see clearly there's been a subsequent case filed. I don't know how this look between the clients because in over 10 years of practicing, I've never seen something like this where a victim turns into a defendant. Why? During a pending case, never seen anything like this. So, Mr. Lee has done this intentionally so that he could one day use it as leverage to contact me or have somebody else contact me or whoever is representing Mr. Pausny so that he could use it as a negotiation tactic. And what he's engaged in is third party communication to get through to Mr. Fausny in violation of his bond. That's number one. He's got a no contact order.

[00:25:04]Second, he's this is witness tampering.

[00:25:07]You don't want to call it extortion.

[00:25:08]Let's call it find something else. It is witness tampering. He's trying to tamper with Mr. Quasny using the leverage that he created. How and I don't know if the prosecute offers allowed this to happen. Somebody wasn't monitoring things properly, but this is what's happened. First ever time I've ever seen anything like this. And it needs to be handled.

[00:25:28]It needs to be handled. It's going to be handled.

[00:25:32]>> Okay.

[00:25:32]>> Can we listen to the call?

[00:25:35]>> Everybody listen to it already.

[00:25:38]I can somebody send it to Miss Widling and I will then be more than happy to listen or if there's an easier way for me to do it, I'll do it. Let's take the defendant back to listen to the call my go to you.

[00:25:56]I'll handle that coming back out.

[00:26:06]I think Miss So bring me that court's going to stay in recess. Everybody can seat.

[00:26:29]Now I got Kennedy Brown and got it.

[00:26:44]Court does call the recall the case of the people's state of Michigan versus Larry Lee.

[00:26:49]>> Good afternoon honor Marie Tan House prosecuting attorney people >> and Mary Rubio on behalf of Mr. Lee who is approaching >> your name.

[00:27:02]>> Okay. The issue is in this case that first of all we we're rejourning the hearing over >> I I believe we we are um that was what I thought we were doing in the beginning.

[00:27:15]>> Well, it's got to stay before me.

[00:27:18]>> So, >> I know Mr. Bur is already going to be here on July 1st. I just wanted to put that out there. Yes, but I'm not on the I'm on the bench, but I'm not doing these.

[00:27:32]>> Okay.

[00:27:35]>> Said his preliminary examination July to defendants request. So, my next date is July 22nd, 2025. And that's at that's another 12m start because God, I love that.

[00:27:51]All right. With reference to Bond in this case, I've listened to the recording.

[00:27:58]Um, I'm not going to say there's an overexaggeration or an underexaggeration. I mean, I think it's relatively clear when somebody's very clearly points out an exchange or quid proquo quid proquo regarding me not testifying and this other person not testifying and that is the exchange.

[00:28:25]I don't know that you get a clearer indication of somebody that is attempting and especially when they circumvent their attorney of somebody trying to um sort of tamper with and obstruct a case.

[00:28:44]It's it couldn't be clear. I mean, and quite frankly, I don't think there's any design to necessarily frost it over or anything along those lines. Um, I think the idea or what Mr. Lee is saying about what Mr. Burgess wouldn't do is quite frankly just a ruse to hide his own desire to have the exchange that he was speaking with council about. Given that and the court having heard that um with reference to his case, the defendant's bond is hereby ordered revoked based upon the court's hearing of that bond violation.

[00:29:28]>> Your honor, can I just um raise two issues before all of this happened? Um Mr. Lee expressed to me and attempted to express to the court his as I'm sure the court has gleaned, his displeasure with Mr. Burgess. So, um, I do think there given some of Mr. Lee's allegations against Mr. Burges, it may be best if someone else is appointed to the case. I know he doesn't want Mr. Burg and that's fine. I I don't know whether or not he doesn't want Mr. Burgess or not because I think, as I'm indicating, I think that notion of Mr. Burge is not doing something and then his checking is simply a ruse for him to try to get the message that I want this quit proquo this exchange.

[00:30:18]>> And I'm not accusing Mr. Burgess of anything. I'm just trying to represent what Mr. >> and I understand that.

[00:30:22]>> And Mr. Lee is about jumping out of his skin trying to talk just so you know.

[00:30:26]>> And and so when you talk to Mr. Burgess, if Mr. Vis if he believes that that's the appropriate step he can bring that motion before this court and the court will hear it in that I'm that I'm on um Mr. Lee, I will let you talk in a moment, but I'm going to finish this vulking your bond because of what is a clear violation of the bond regarding and I mean I think it's an attempt to try to get indirect contact as well as obstruct these proceedings because that was accomplished in the manner it was and I'm not sure that I can trust you with reference to no context and the like. We're at least going to get through this. I am going to subject to a hearing. Defendant phone privileges for the jail are also revoked.

[00:31:20]What did you wish to say, sir?

[00:31:22]>> Um the thing that um my substitute attorney here didn't convey to you was that I told her that I have the evidence with me in hand. Um that my attorney, Mr. Burgess was the one that actually said that this was a legal way that we can go about it. And I'm not I'm not >> You know what? You know what, Mr. You might as well stop right now?

[00:31:50]>> Because No, I'm going to tell you, I don't know if you're misunderstanding something or what, but you are not Mr. Burgess has appeared before. You are not going to sit here and try to disparage that man, saying that somehow or another, Mr. Burges represented to you that obstructing a case in this fashion was a legal way to proceed.

[00:32:12]>> I'm not going to believe it and I'm not going to hear you.

[00:32:15]>> I have >> I'm not going to hear you. I don't know what you what how do you not understand what I'm telling you. Now, if you've got that information and you think that's what it says, you get it to council and the court will take a look at it. But you're not going to sit here and disparage that man. It is not going to happen. I'm done. Bon revolt. Thank you.

[00:32:37]Thank you, your honor.

[00:32:42]>> Thank you.

[00:32:42]>> By the end of this hearing, the courtroom moved from uncertainty to a very direct ruling. Judge Simpson concluded that the recorded conversation raised serious concerns involving attempts to interfere with the proceedings and that determination ultimately led to the defendant's bond being revoked. Throughout this case, the courtroom repeatedly returned to one central theme. Actions inside and outside a court can carry consequences that extend far beyond what someone initially expects. We also saw a sharp contrast between confusion about legal procedure and conduct that the court viewed as potentially undermining the process itself. The emotional weight of the hearing became clear as frustration, urgency, and credibility concerns all collided at once. What started as ordinary courtroom matters evolved into a reminder that every statement, every call, and every decision can carry real consequences. If you found this case as intense as we did, hit that like button, share your thoughts and comments, and don't forget to subscribe for more powerful courtroom breakdowns.