Judge Calls Out Lawyer in Karen Read Case

Added: 2026-05-10

[00:00:00]Attorney Mark Diller on behalf of the O'Keefe is about to get his ass handed to him. As you're about to find out, he is not good at communicating. Oh yes, basic communication skills elude this man. And not only that, he is about to get called out by the judge publicly in the courtroom setting, which is not a position you want to be in. Folks, this is a video you do not want to miss.

[00:00:27]Let's take a look.

[00:00:31]He doesn't say anything new. You must follow the law. He was present. So I think he can answer whether or not it happened or not.

[00:00:37]>> Have you had any conversation with the prosecutor?

[00:00:39]>> I could say the same thing by taking Amber Heard as a client.

[00:00:42]>> Rented to him, don't you think?

[00:00:43]>> Oh, hardly.

[00:00:44]>> Are you able to estimate of those thousand different types of cases dealing with accident reconstruction? Uh we're not with the jury presence. That was >> Have you reached a verdict?

[00:00:53]>> We the jury find the defendant not guilty.

[00:00:55]>> Not guilty.

[00:00:56]>> Not guilty. Not guilty. not guilty.

[00:01:03]>> Well, hello everybody and welcome back to Buckle Up. It is the law with attorney Larry Foreman. Folks, today we are going to review the hearing from yesterday, May 7th, 2026 in the Karen Reed civil case, O'Keefe versus Reed in Plymouth Circuit in Massachusetts. The judge is present.

[00:01:23]Rosenberg is present. Diller is present.

[00:01:26]We have a couple other lawyers from CF McCarthy's and that other place Waterfall. And we are going to watch magic happen. The judge, this is a simple status conference. That's all it is. It is a status conference to talk about depositions. How many have you scheduled? How many have you actually had? How many do you have scheduled?

[00:01:44]When should we expect the next one to be, etc. We're about to find out that one deposition has been held since February 11th, 2026. Whose fault is it?

[00:01:53]Who knows? We're actually not even going to get to that because Mark Diller is going to take us on a journey. He is going to try and use our platform since we're covering this case as a springboard for his unruly message. So be be uh on on on the edge of your seats because Rosenberg has the best response to that.

[00:02:17]So folks, I cannot wait to share this with you. Like I said in the intro, if there's a video you were going to miss, you're like, I'll watch this later. This is not it. Trust me when I say this.

[00:02:27]This is a video you want to watch from beginning to end to understand exactly the position that Mark Diller is in and how the judge very rightfully so gets very angry with him. So folks, let's watch.

[00:02:41]Your honor, the matter before the court is civil action number 2484 83, excuse me, CB00692.

[00:02:48]Paul O'Keeffe, individually and personal representative of the estate of John Joseph O'Keefe III at all versus CNC Hospitality LLC doing business as CNF McCarthy's at all. Your honor, for the plaintiffs, we have attorney Mark Giller present by Zoom. For defendant CNF McCarthy's, we have attorney Tamara Holtzag. For defendant Waterfall, we have attorney John De and David Hasset, I believe, or maybe just one of them.

[00:03:12]>> It's just John Dey today, madam.

[00:03:15]>> Thank you.

[00:03:17]And for defendant Reed, we have attorney Sarah Shipley and attorney Aaron Rosenberg. Your your honor.

[00:03:23]>> Good afternoon, everyone.

[00:03:28]>> So, when we were last together on April 9th, um at that point, I think not a single deposition had taken place other than keep a record depositions. And I concede that >> and we know that at least one deposition has been taken since. And I think we're about to find out. I I didn't cheat. I didn't watch this, but I read some uh some comments on Twitter, so I know that um I think the name is already revealed, but it's not a name that I recognized if I remember correctly. Now, this case has been pending for 619 days, and I acknowledge that for 231 of those days, over 7 months, the case was subject to what was a very limited stay as to discovery involving Ms. Reed and depositions of certain of her family members. But that stay expired over 10 months ago. When was it in July? So coming up on a year.

[00:04:31]>> Why is Diller is it just me or is Diller looking like really guilty? Because obviously it's his lawsuit. He filed it.

[00:04:37]He's the one who should have been taking action on it. Rosenberg is nodding his head as you can see. So it's obvious the judge is unhappy with the fact that this case has been on his docket almost a full two years at this point. And a as of April, the last uh court hearing, there was not a single deposition that was taken. And that is extremely unusual. As a matter of fact, I mean, regardless of the fact of the stay, which the judge just very aptly described, the stay was only for Karen Reed and her family. What about all the other stuff? All the other witnesses that you could have procured and put on, you know, I was about to say put on the stand, but essentially that's what a deposition is, is you put someone metaphorically on the stand. you know, you can videotape it. There's always going to be a transcript of the deposition, etc. with a court reporter in the room. So, it's it's a very formal official memorialization of events. So, the fact that not a single action has been taken uh and maybe we're about to find out at least one has been finally taken, a deposition of course, I mean, in 600 plus days. I mean, this is not if I'm Diller, this is not a good place to start for me as the plaintiff's attorney who is supposed to be prosecuting this case, right? That's what you do. It's we don't really call it prosecuting. I mean, in the legal world, we kind of do realistically speaking, you're not a prosecutor. You're this prosecution is usually criminal, but being the plaintiff, you are kind of failing, you know, to prosecute this case, Mr. Diller. There's even a mechanism in the law uh I don't know if it exists in Massachusetts. I imagine it does. It does in Kentucky and I think in all 50 states. There is an action that the court can take suante of its own accord for something known as failure to prosecute. So if a plaintiff does not refuses to or just simply fails to take action within the 365 calendar year and by action I mean a single filing a single anything. You know courts like finality. Courts don't like things to drag on for years and years and god forbid decades and decades. So what courts will do very often is they will simply dismiss. And it literally says the action by the court that is taken is failure to prosecute. case dismissed for failure to prosecute. They don't call it failure to plaintiff or failure to whatever. It's called failure to prosecute. So, obviously, it's not going to happen here because Diller is showing up. They're doing stuff. But the fact that it's been so delayed, clearly the judge is finally calling a spade a spade and going, "What's taking so long? Why are we dragging this out, Mr. Diller?"

[00:07:18]uh Mr. Diller is in the hot seat today.

[00:07:19]Mark is going to have to answer for his crimes. And I I tried to figure out how a case that's been pending for so long could have so few depositions conducted.

[00:07:29]And one possible answer came when I was looking at the docket. Did you know that the parties are represented by a total of 22 lawyers in this case?

[00:07:39]>> Oh my god.

[00:07:40]>> Ms. Reed leads the pack with 10. The plaintiffs are a distant second with five.

[00:07:48]Waterfall has four. and McCarthy's has had to try and get by with only three.

[00:07:55]But then I thought of the attorneys that are involved in the case and they're all experienced lawyers and so they can't be the reason that the case has been pending so long with so few depositions taking place. Then I thought, well, maybe it's the issues in the case are so complex, but I think as we all recognize, when you cut to the core of this case, it's a wrongful death action with a drama component and a claim for of negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle. So, it's really not that complex. And when I say that, I'm not >> The judge is very upset. You can tell by the tone of his voice. He is finally realizing he's had enough. We need to get this thing moving. Marky. Oh, again.

[00:08:43]I would not want to be Mark right now.

[00:08:45]>> Trying to minimize the claim of the plaintiffs or the defenses of the defendants.

[00:08:51]>> You should because she didn't do it. But please continue. Judge.

[00:08:54]>> So, we're here for status on discovery.

[00:08:57]So, I'd like to hear from each party as to what depositions they have conducted, those that they have noticed, and those that are intended.

[00:09:08]And I thought maybe we'd go in the order of the number of attorneys that a party has. Well, let's go to Waterfall.

[00:09:16]Attorney Daily, >> good good afternoon, your honor. Um on behalf of Waterfall, we have noticed some depositions that are scheduled for uh July because so many depositions had already been scheduled. Uh but we have not taken any depositions yet. We did participate in the deposition that took place I think on Tuesday in this case.

[00:09:36]We have depositions scheduled of um a witness from the a witness from one of the uh bars where Mr. Reed was present as well as the toxicologist for the Massachusetts State Police uh Trooper Roberts or not if it's Trooper Roberts, Dr. Roberts. Um also scheduled in July.

[00:09:57]>> Okay. I don't know how much you heard of that, but what I'm hearing from each party as to what depositions they have conducted, those that they have noticed, and those that they have intended. So, go right ahead.

[00:10:09]>> Thank you, your honor. Uh, I got uh so we have uh to out today or tomorrow the definition of >> attorney, you're kind of breaking up. I don't know if everyone else is hearing the same thing.

[00:10:25]>> Okay. So, I was saying that we have ready to go today or tomorrow the deposition notices and subpoenas to two um of the patrons of Waterfall. Uh we've been coordinating with council for Waterfall who also have an interest in those two witnesses as well as with plaintiffs council. Um we also are going to notice the deposition of one of the patrons of our own bar. And then um in addition to that, we've been in constant or I should say frequent contact with plaintiffs council Mr. Diller as to the scheduling of four witnesses on behalf of CF McCarthy's which are scheduled for May, June, and July. And we're working on dates that work for all the witnesses, your honor.

[00:11:14]>> Okay. Attorney Diller, on behalf of the plaintiffs.

[00:11:17]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:11:20]At this stage, plaintiff has taken a deposition of Steven Scandlin. We've served 13 notices of Steven Scandlin.

[00:11:28]That's the name. I did not recognize it.

[00:11:30]Let me know in the comments below so that I may be able to catch up a little bit because I have not had the time. I don't know if a lot of you know, but I have completely shifted my practice. We are no longer doing criminal defense. We are now 100% personal injury. And actually, my new website uh just went live on my birthday uh this week. So, I'm very very excited about that. And Google is still like populating it and we're still filling it out. There's still a lot of stuff that needs to go on there. But the good news is uh it's live. It's officially live. My old website that's been around in one form or another for 13 years uh since I first built it in Weebi is now gone. No more criminal defense. It's kind of hard to believe that I'm I'm done with criminal defense forever, but of course, we're still going to be getting cases here and there. I I know that they're going to be coming, but I I will be taking fewer and fewer and fewer criminal defense cases, and more and more and more personal injury cases, wrongful death, dog bites, car crashes, pedestrian collisions, you know, that sort of thing. Uh medical malpractice, hospital malpractice. So, we do lots of those. And this is a cue to run the ad. Have you been injured in an accident? Have you been hurt by a doctor? Have you suffered from a dog bite? Have you lost a loved one due to someone else's negligence? Call us 1844774 hurt. Get a trial lawyer to get you the most money you deserve. I hope you enjoyed that. Obviously, uh that's my my ad for personal injury that I've been running for about a year now, but now we're fully committed. The entire shift has been complete. I'm hiring new staff. I already hired several staff to the personal injury side, and we're going to continue growing that arm of the business, and I'm really, really excited about it. So, the reason I said all of that, honestly, is to tell you that I I don't know who that guy is that Mark is talking about, and I was wondering if you guys can help fill me in. So, thank you in advance. I just don't have the time and the bandwidth.

[00:13:23]I'm I'm constructing right now. I'm building. It's like the most energy I've had in years. I remember Sorry to do another segue real quick, but this is just this is really fun for me to talk about. When I first started my business, when I first started my business in October of 2013, I was building everything from scratch and I was building everything by hand. I didn't have any money. I didn't have any, you know, assets or anything like that. I just I literally I was in debt. I was in debt up to my eyeballs. Over 100 grand in law school loans. And I I had nothing. I had zero dollars in my bank account, you know, literally. And so I couldn't just hire someone to help me.

[00:14:01]So I did everything myself. And then eventually I started hiring people here and there to like build my new website, blah blah blah. But now it's kind of interesting because now I'm an established attorney. I have a reputation. I have a presence. I have a name. I have a YouTube channel with a following. Like people know about me in the United States, worldwide, blah blah blah, whatever. Now I'm actually constructing something new. And now I can actually get help which is really convenient because I don't have the time to be doing any of that myself because I'm I'm running a business. I'm building a practice and I also have my own personal life and the YouTube channel.

[00:14:32]So you can imagine how many things I have to do on a daily basis at least for the time being. Maybe for the next few weeks, maybe for the next couple of months until things kind of stabilize and uh then everything is going to start it's just going to be a machine that's going to start operating on its own. But anyway, so I apologize for not knowing some things because I don't know who that guy is and maybe you don't either, but if you do, please let me know in the comments below. All right, Marky, what else you got?

[00:14:56]>> Deposition three to occur in May. Karen Reed is notice for June 19th. Aiden Carney is scheduled in July. We've got a pending motion to intervene in the Norfolk Superior Court to enforce our subpoena to enter into a protective order and get access to Mr. Carney's digital evidence.

[00:15:19]On February 11th, 2026, your honor, the defendant Reed noticed 19 depositions and scheduled them for specific dates.

[00:15:28]Plaintiff blocked off all of those dates and prepared for such depositions at that time. Okay, attorney Diller, let let me I'll give you the chance if you want to complain about something, but right now I just want to >> know what depositions you've taken, those that have been noticed, and those you intend on taking.

[00:15:48]>> Okay.

[00:15:49]>> Yep.

[00:15:50]>> Okay. Attorney Rosenberg, on behalf of Miss Reed.

[00:15:55]>> Thank you, your honor. Uh we've scheduled we've we have noticed, I believe, a total of 15 or 16 depositions. We had uh I believe two that were supposed to go forward that witnesses uh were unavailable for that we rescheduled. And we recently rescheduled some uh the some of the remaining depositions that we had previously noticed as a result of scheduling changes and uh the way that discovery has proceeded. Um, we've got the prim the most of our depositions relate to the one claim that your honor didn't mention when you were discussing the case, which is the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Miss Reed, which relates to what the plaintiffs deem a false narrative.

[00:16:49]Um, and the the the defense to that, obviously, one of the defenses is that that's not a false narrative. So, a lot of these witnesses relate to that quote unquote narrative.

[00:17:03]Um, and and so I I I would just say I don't think it's as simple and in fact, as the plaintiff has argued, it's not quite as simple as just a wrongful death claim because of the way that the plaintiffs pleaded. So, we've got them all. We have them scheduled. Uh, I believe uh Mr. Diller said Miss Reed is currently scheduled June 19th or so. I think most of if not all of our depositions surround that date uh and finish up at the very beginning of July.

[00:17:37]As Mr. Dey said, I think that's when they've noticed uh the depositions that they noticed.

[00:17:44]>> And you mentioned two depositions that had to be rescheduled because of scheduling issues.

[00:17:51]>> Uh that it was either one or two. I think it was two. I'm just speaking off the top of my head. One was a third party witness who was who the witness's council indicated was unavailable. I I actually believe there were there were two of them.

[00:18:09]Again, off the top of my head, so uh I could be wrong, but I believe it was two uh third party witnesses whose council reached out before the deposition and requested a new date. And you know, we were we accommodated.

[00:18:25]>> Were you able to get today's deposition done in the five hours we allocated?

[00:18:30]>> Well, no. That that deposition was rescheduled. And I and I Yeah, that's the answer.

[00:18:38]>> So, someone answer for me. How many depositions have actually taken place since April 9th?

[00:18:45]>> One.

[00:18:46]>> One.

[00:18:47]One.

[00:18:50]Okay.

[00:18:52]Attorney Diller, I cut you off. You You were about to convey some information or thoughts to me, so go ahead.

[00:19:00]>> You're muted, bud.

[00:19:03]>> You You're muted, Attorney Diller.

[00:19:06]>> Thank you, your honor. On February 11th, your honor, defendant Reed noticed 19os and scheduled them for specific dates.

[00:19:16]plaintiff and all the parties blocked off all of those dates and prepared for those dep depots. So far, defendant Reed has canceled 17 depositions and renoticed all of them. For all of the dep depots that were scheduled to occur between March 24th and next week, your honor, the defendant Reed has canled 13 depositions.

[00:19:40]Many of those cancellations occurred on the eve of those depots, at least as far as we were notified.

[00:19:48]Even though the defendant Reed had us block off all of these dates in February, I've learned that since defendant Reed just sent off notices of deposition to the parties in this case, but did not bother to serve many of those deponents until the last minute.

[00:20:07]this clickbait lawyering is a tactic so that she can create a false narrative that these deponents are the ones who are cancelling the depositions but bea because of the late canc it's so obvious like dude just just speak from the heart just tell us how you feel don't don't read your motion or argument like it's so detracting and and and this is her perpetual uating her near. Oh my god. It's it's I swear it's it's Hank Brennan and Lai all over again. Only now it's in the form of Diller. It's like round three. Here we go. Yes. A different standard. It's no longer beyond a reasonable doubt. It is now by preponderance of the evidence.

[00:20:54]But you would think if she didn't do it beyond a reasonable doubt, how could you have possibly done it by preponderance of the evidence? ations. Defendant Reid has now rebooked those 17 depositions.

[00:21:07]Um, and without regard to other dates that we have already served depo notices for between now and August 1st, we have 35 depositions on the calendar in this case. recently disclosed information from documents and depos likely uh make necessary additional dep depots being noticed likely. I'm concerned, your honor, because I expect there will be third-party motion practice from some of these deponents. It appears that defendant Reed is using our case to conduct discovery for the three other cases that are currently pending with her involvement.

[00:21:57]So, I just wanted to give you context to the the scheduling that has occurred up until today.

[00:22:05]>> Your honor, as you could expect, I'd like to respond to that context, please.

[00:22:10]>> Shocking. Go right ahead. Thank you, your honor. It's unclear if we're conducting a press conference here or a status conference in a civil proceeding.

[00:22:19]>> Yes. Thank you, Rosenberg. That's what I was thinking. What is this, a press conference? He's doing it for He knows YouTube channels are going to be covering it. So, is he trying to talk to us to like be like, "Oh, the horror.

[00:22:33]Rosenberg, how dare you?"

[00:22:36]Like, WHAT IS GOING ON? THANK you for calling that out, man. Shout out to you, Aaron. That was great.

[00:22:43]>> I don't know what clickbait lawyering is, but what I can tell you, your honor, is attorney Diller has never never raised any concern about any date of our depositions with us. If any party any party to this case has a concern with a date for a deposition that we've noticed, we are more than happy to discuss that.

[00:23:05]It is completely inappropriate, yes, >> for parties to come on to a a proceeding like this and take the time to force us all to go back and forth about topics like this that should be addressed between councils. So, I would ask your honor that we not not handle this in this type of proceeding and instead if there's a problem with scheduling, by all means, let us know and we will adjust it as we have for third parties.

[00:23:33]That is crazy. The fact that Diller even had the audacity to bring scheduling conflicts again. Babysit Judge, babysit us. Help us. We are so puny and tiny and helpless. Without you, I am nothing but a maggot. Like, come on, dude. Do your freaking job. Look at his face. Look at Diller's face. His face is just like, I don't know what you expect of me cuz he's getting called out. I mean, I swear I'm telling you, this is the most bizarre case again that we've ever seen.

[00:24:08]It's like Jackson and Yianetti and Allessie in the courtroom prosecuting the case and Hank Brennan and Orali having to defend it and saying, "No, no, no, no, no. This is what really happened." Same thing here. Rosenberg is the is the plainif here. No, he's the defense lawyer, obviously, but it feels like he's the plainif. Why is the plainif acting like the defendant and the defense lawyer acting like the plaintiff's lawyer? Like, I I don't understand this crap. Like, I I do, but I don't. You know what I mean? At the same time, it's so frustrating. Like, this is crazy.

[00:24:42]The fact that they're just going back and forth like children over garbage.

[00:24:47]And the fact that Diller is the one with the deer in the headlights look again, kind of like the city lawyer that we covered a couple days ago on this channel. If you haven't seen it, go check it out. That was a hearing.

[00:24:58]Anyway, oh god, I swear this case is just a case that keeps on giving.

[00:25:03]>> I'm not going to I the the accusation that the lawyering is being done for a particular way, frankly, is completely out of bounds and inappropriate and it's designed simply to be conveyed to the public and not to your honor. And I I I I request that we that we reconsider what types of discussions we're willing to have in hearings like this prior to any conference under Rule 9C or any other court rule.

[00:25:34]>> So hang on one second. I bet attorney Holstag doesn't want to miss all this.

[00:25:39]So we'll wait a moment for her to get back on. Is she trying to get back on, Kelsey?

[00:25:43]>> Yes, your honor. She should be popping up in a second.

[00:25:49]I'm here, your honor.

[00:25:50]>> I wish she would mute her.

[00:25:51]>> Okay.

[00:25:52]>> Like there's an echo.

[00:25:54]>> So, >> I didn't have anything. I heard it all.

[00:25:58]>> Okay. All right.

[00:26:02]>> Attorney Diller, have you spoken with any of the parties about these issues?

[00:26:08]>> Yeah. I mean, quite honestly, many of these cancellations we weren't notified until the eve. I'll have you know that.

[00:26:20]>> But, but hang on, hang hang on, Attorney Dillard, did you did you call up any of Miz Reed's 10 lawyers and say, "Hey, what's going on here?"

[00:26:33]We've talked to them plenty, but we haven't talked about their position of cancelling all these.

[00:26:38]>> Look, look at Rosenberg. He's just smiling, SHAKING HIS HEAD. YOU HAVEN'T TALKED TO THE LAWYERS ABOUT THE CANCELLATIONS. YOU'RE JUST BRINGING IT UP TO THE JUDGE. WHAT KIND OF LAWYER ARE YOU? You're supposed to work together.

[00:26:51]Yes, you're adversarial. I get it.

[00:26:53]You're on opposite sides of the V, but there is something called professionalism. There's something called respect. There was something known as professional courtesy. And you know what? When I was a baby lawyer, when I was maybe like in my second year of practice, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT PROFESSIONAL COURTESY MEANT. I wanted to do everything in front of the judge. And that is the truth. When I was starting out, oh my god, you guys, you have no idea how I was like, "Oh, I want to go headto-head with these prosecutors and all that." But then, you know what? I grew up. I matured. I was like, "Hey, listen. We never received that. Do you mind just giving it to us again?" And da da da da da. You know how much further it takes you in life as an attorney when you don't try and litigate every single little thing? Just pick up the phone and say, "Hey, bro. Um, can we XY Z?" Yeah.

[00:27:38]Okay, sure. Whatever. Bye. Click. You didn't do that. Oh, >> got positions, your honor.

[00:27:46]>> Okay. Well, it's kind of like you're trying to sandbag them, which isn't a great way to do it, you know. Let's let's take a step back here.

[00:27:53]>> Yeah.

[00:27:53]>> And keep in mind that We all have to be professional in how we deal with these cases and >> that necessarily involves communication and >> so let's try and keep that in mind as we go forward. All right, we'll see everyone on June 3.

[00:28:16]>> Oh my god, the judge just called out Diller. That is amazing.

[00:28:22]>> At 3:00. Is that date a problem for anyone?

[00:28:26]>> No.

[00:28:28]>> No, your honor.

[00:28:29]>> No, your honor.

[00:28:30]>> Nope.

[00:28:30]>> Now, your honor.

[00:28:32]>> Okay. I hate to keep getting together every month, but it looks like we're going to have to continue to do it. So, we'll see everyone June 3rd.

[00:28:39]>> Get the kids in order on the playground.

[00:28:44]>> Now, that's a rare sight for a play.

[00:28:47]Again, you have to understand where I'm coming from and why I'm getting so excited over this. Think about it. Who is the plaintiff? Right? 99.9% of the time, the plaintiff is someone that has a legitimate claim. Sometimes it's a personal vendetta. Sometimes it's uh personal grievance. Sometimes it's going to be like this, like a personal against Karen Reed. It feels personal at least. So, okay. But 99.9% of the time, plaintiffs are like they're the clean ones. They're like, "Your honor, we're just trying to get our job done. We're just doing our best. Defense council refuses to cooperate with us. Please help." And defense council's like, "We need this, your honor, and we need that, your honor, and we need this, your honor." And the judge is like, "All right, okay. Just settle down. Let's, you know," and the defense council is usually the one on the defensive side, usually because they're the ones who did wrong, usually. But when it comes to this, when it's a personal vendetta over something that Karen didn't even do, and it's just like the lawyer is trying to squeeze Rosenberg just for the fun of it, to squeeze Karen just for the fun of it because I think they know they're not going to win. Like, you can tell it's oozing out of him. Diller is has a like me, by the way. I have a terrible poker face. Diller also has a horrible poker face. He's trying he's trying very hard to maintain, but he's he's having a lot of trouble because he knows his case is crap. It is complete and utter garbage and he's probably going to lose and he's wasting all this time and resources and all that just to appease the O'Keefes and the Alberts and the McCabes and all the Higgins and whatever whoever else he's getting paid for under the table for this. I don't know. Again, I'm making all this up. Don't take it literally. I I don't know. I just don't understand like Dillard doing all of this on behalf of the O'Keefe, but whatever. Maybe they're connected and he owes them a favor or something. You can tell that Diller doesn't want to do this. He doesn't want to be there. So instead, he he resorts to these sleazy snake oil salesman tactics that belongs not in the plaintiff's attorney's hands and the plaintiff's attorney's mouth.

[00:31:04]That's not his position. It shouldn't be his position. He should just be coming in and saying, "Your honor, we're doing everything right and here it is." He's doing everything wrong. He's screwing everything up. He's not communicate. Not to communicate with opposing council on a civil case is mind-boggling. I had no idea that it still even happens in this day and age, especially on such a public case where, you know, you're in the hot seat. You know, people like me and brother counsel and lawyer, you know, and all these other YouTube uh Melanie Little YouTube afficionados, you know, independent researchers, independent reporters like ourselves are going to be covering this case. and we are attorneys with a license to practice law and we can talk about it cogently and properly to not to just smear your name like this. I I don't understand like if I'm a client and I'm watching this lawyer, you know, participate in a civil proceeding.

[00:31:58]I would never hire him in a million years for my case. I don't want a lawyer that's so crappy he doesn't know how to follow the rules and doesn't even understand basic courtesy. You know what I mean? So, it's a terrible look for him. It's a terrible look for the case.

[00:32:11]It looks great on Karen Reed and Aaron Rosenberg and everybody else. CF McCarthy's and you know the other uh defense lawyers in this case, they don't really give a damn. I didn't know Karen Reed had 10 lawyers. That's almost half of the lawyers in the case. 11 would be exactly 50%. But anyway, 22 lawyers.

[00:32:28]Wow. Anyway, folks, I hope you enjoyed it. I hope you learned something. I'm looking forward to continuing coverage of this case and other cases. Again, my apologies. I know there's so much stuff going on. I just don't have the time for it right now. I will try and get around to as much as I can. The sidebars are also coming this spring. I will continue with the help of the trial channel.

[00:32:47]Shout out to you for all the hard work that you are doing. We are going to try and get back on the sidebar train. I know you haven't seen the sidebar videos since like maybe beginning of March, middle of March, somewhere around there.

[00:32:59]So, it's been a couple of months, but we're going to get some more out of those to you. And until then, folks, I hope you learned something. I love every single one of you and I will see you all in the next video. Bye everybody.