Traos expertly simplifies the "actual malice" standard, showing how the law protects those who are sincerely wrong. It is a sharp, accessible breakdown of why the truth often loses to protected belief in the courtroom.
Installieren Sie unsere Erweiterung an, um sofort in jedem Video zu suchen
Defamation Lawsuit Breakdown: Are Karen Read and Turtleboy in Trouble?Hinzugefügt:
What's up everybody? Welcome back in another episode of the Lawyer You Know podcast. And we are diving back into a case we've hit so many times that is Karen Reed. But guess what? It is a brand new lawsuit and she has a codefendant Aiden Carney aka Turtle Boy.
They are sued for defamation, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, for civil conspiracy, for all sorts of things by, you may have guessed it by now, the Commonwealth witnesses, aka House defendants. Well, in this document, they're going to be known as the plaintiffs. And guess what? If you think that this is just the same old regurgitated facts we've heard a million times, it's not. They really focus on what they call the false campaign of defamation to harass and defame these witnesses and plaintiffs in this case.
There are a lot of allegations I had never really heard before. I don't know what evidence they have backing it up. I don't know if it's true or if it's not.
But like we said, when we read a complaint, we take those facts as true.
And if these facts are true, are Karen Reed and Turtle Boy in trouble? Let's get to it.
You know, a perfect transition there would have been let's find out. Are they in trouble? Let's find out. If I was a real broadcaster, that's what I would do. I love when my dad calls this a broadcast. That's my favorite thing. Um, okay. Let's jump into Whoops. Oops.
Whoops. Got all my tools out here. Let's jump into this complaint. Okay. Because we know about defamation. Anybody that's been around long enough to remember the name Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, we have talked about and broken down defamation cases before. And if you remember all the way back to before that, I've actually worked on a couple.
Very few defamation cases because they're just so difficult to win.
They're so difficult to collect on. Are you really going to sue an individual person and get money from them? Now, if it's Fox News or something like that, we've seen lawsuits where people can be successful and get some money out of those cases. But generally, if somebody says something about you that's defamatory, are you really going to spend time and money to go sue them?
Well, in this scenario, you can see why this would be worth it to them, right?
because of what's happening to their reputation publicly. The plaintiffs in this case, which are all listed, the uh plaintiffs in this case, Jennifer McCabe, Brian Albert, Colin Albert, and Brian Higgins, which I think is very interesting. No Matt McCabe, no um Albert's wife, and no other kids, just Colin Albert. So interesting, the plaintiffs that actually were chosen in this lawsuit, not all of the house defendants or uh Commonwealth witnesses, but just a select few, and we'll see why. And I actually think that was smart after reading this complaint to just pick these four. Uh there was other things that I thought was just dumb.
they went too broad. But I thought when they got specific to certain things, it was actually I understand why they filed this complaint and we'll get into all that obviously, but defamation is so difficult because the truth is an ultimate defense and also a good faith opinion that what you're saying you actually believe to be true. That's good too. Like not not good. It's not good for you to say everything you're thinking obviously, but it's not defamatory.
um they they have to basically know that what they're saying is false and do it in a defamatory nuh nature. But there's also so much in this case for boxes that they do check when it comes to diss uh to defamation because they are disseminating these things out. They are trying to affect people's reputation and character. It could be considered harassing. Is it illegal? Is it first amendment? We'll talk about all of that as well as we go through this document.
But you can understand why they get here when you get to this. And the most important thing when reading this complaint to me is the judges and eventually a jury, if this were to get that far, how are they going to view this wacky world of YouTube that many of us have been a part of for the last few years? Because when I first started making YouTube videos, when stuff would happen, if somebody would send a super chat, I'm like, I have literally no clue what that is. I don't know what's going on. I don't know how to even click this button. We've gone through different streaming softwares. We've been through all sorts of different things. Cameras and microphones and whatever it may be.
Talking to the chat lives, pre-recorded videos, whatever it may be. So many different things. And people sending me hilarious, you know, bobbleheads and plaques and, you know, jokes and all this stuff. People making merch and shirts and whatever it may be. It is a wild world unlike anything else I've ever experienced in my life. Some of it is amazing. I love it. It's so much fun.
Some of it is crazy. Some of it I hate.
Right? Most of that's on Twitter.
But they talk about a lot of that. And I think when you explain it to somebody who has no clue what it's about, who has never experienced any of it, it does sound crazy. It does sound wacky. It does sound something that may rise to the level that you need in some of these intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Is it shocking to your core, especially when you have somebody like Turtle Boy and the way that he runs his YouTube channel? Right. And when we talk about they're going to talk through this about some, you know, super chats and people paying him for stuff and how he says just give me the cash. I'm making4 or $50 million a month or whatever it may be. How that's going to be I think some judges are really going to hate some of the content of this complaint and maybe some jurors too. So that to me is you always got to think about your audience whenever you're writing a document making an argument.
You know, as a lawyer especially, always consider your audience. Some people are asking me why they filed it in um Barnst Barnstable, I guess, is the the place they filed it. I have no clue. Were they forum shopping? Potentially. Potentially forum shopping, but I don't know, right?
Maybe they like the potential jurors there. Maybe they like the potential judges there. I don't know.
Okay, let's get into it. The introduction. This case arises from a multi-year conspiracy orchestrated by Karen Reed and Aiden Carney. to I'll do my best to say Carney, not Kierney, but in my head I still think Kierney to subvert and prejudice the criminal justice process in Norfick County, Massachusetts. So difficult part with that is like, so are you going to try to like prove that?
cuz good luck. Because there's plenty of people that would say that about every single defense attorney. And there's some things they do here that are a misstep that happen in every single criminal case that they're acting as like nefarious. And real judges are going to look at that and be like, "What are what are you trying to say here?
That defense lawyers and defense teams are allowed to hire investigators, that those investigators are not able to talk to witnesses. What are you talking about?" So, you got to be careful when you when you do things like this, especially if you're a civil lawyer who's never practiced criminal and maybe doesn't have experience in understanding how the criminal process works and how a lot of prosecutors respect what criminal defense attorneys do, too. Uh, through a coordinated scheme, Reed and Kierney sought to protect and enrich themselves by defaming, harassing, and tormenting the plaintiffs who served as witnesses in connection with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts investigation into the death of John O'Keefe and its prosecution of Reed for his murder. More sorry, more specifically, Reed and Carney conspired to defame and did defame the plaintiffs by falsely asserting, among other things, that they were responsible for O'Keefe's death, conspired to conceal their roles in the death, their roles, like Aiden Carney now, I guess, has a role in John O'Keefe's death, and framed Reed for murder. The plaintiffs are now and have always been entirely innocent of any involvement in O'Keefe's tragic death.
Here is a major issue for them.
They are still asserting and continue to assert and believe that Karen Reed is responsible for John O'Keefe's death.
Maybe Turtle Boy 2. I have no idea. But let's just go with the more plausible explanation that they really just mean Karen Reed caused the death of John O'Keefe.
That has gone through not one but two trials. She has been acquitted.
The scientific evidence seems pretty clear. Carr did not hit man. Man did not hit Carr.
Many of the jurors believe she was factually innocent and they continue to say she did it. Defamation, sue them, right? No, that is a protected opinion and belief.
It can even be a factual belief. It might be wrong, but they believe based on what they know and what they experienced and the evidence they've seen. And you know, they were there that night, so they have a belief that she did this. There's no video, right? So, we're not going to be able to know with 100% certainty exactly what happened.
But they firmly believe Karen Reed did this. And in my legal opinion, that's not defamation.
So, what about the inverse? If Karen Reed and Turtle Boy say that they were responsible, these plaintiffs, and they've never been convicted, never even been charged, is that defamation or is that a good faith belief, opinion, whatever you want to call it, that Karen Reed and Turtle Boy have? And how is that different than their view that Karen Reed did it, right? Because they can both point to evidence. They can say smashed tail light. They can say words Karen Reed said. They can say phone calls. They can say actions she took that night. That's why they believe it. And then on the other side, why do Karen Reed and Turtle Boy believe what they believe? Well, they can say the damage that was done to John O'Keefe. How he looked, where his body was, the injuries on him, how they correspond with things that they believe is in the house. Karen Reed says that John O'Keefe entered the house. She dropped him off. The video showing they were getting ready for a fight. Now, whether I believe that or you believe that or anybody else believes that, if they actually believe that and that's why they say what they're saying, we live in a country where you're allowed to do that.
Now, the way you do things sometimes can affect what you're saying. And that's going to be a big part of this lawsuit as well. And why I think it is not just a an easy toss it out, throw it away, this is a joke, shred this piece of paper, it's not worth what it's printed on. And that's the way a lot of this was said. and what was done throughout the entire process on YouTube, in people's actual lives, showing up places and doing things and the bombastic nature of a lot of this, it can get you in trouble. It really can because you can absolutely go overboard on what's protected because there are lines and there are limits and you can't cross them. Reeds and Kierney's calculated operation to assassinate the character of reputation and reputations of the plaintiffs has caused incalculable harm, subjecting them to a daily title wave of hatred, harassment, and intimidation. While the damages to these plaintiffs have been catastrophic, Reed and Kierney's lies have also caused a rupture within the Canton, Massachusetts community, poisoning the community's cohesion and discourse. So, are you suing them for the everything wrong in the community or just this? Like, you got to be careful about how wide you really stretch this.
And if it were me and I was a judge, every time they stretched it wider than they needed to, it would be annoying.
It's like, so now you're blaming blaming them for everything wrong in Canton, Massachusetts. Come on, stick to your four plaintiffs. Reed's and Kierney's lies, which were amplified by a vigorous public relations campaign, tainted the criminal prosecution of Reed and deprived the O'Keefe family and the Commonwealth of the justice they deserve. The plaintiffs bring this civil action to finally hold Reed and Carney accountable for the wreckage that their conduct has caused and to prove in a public forum governed by the rules of evidence that Reed and Carney individually and collectively pursued a deliberate scheme to spread lies. Okay?
Not to say what they believed and what they believed ended up being wrong. to intentionally lie about the plaintiffs, use social media and other amplification means to achieve maximum penetration of those lies and enrich themselves through their illgotten celebrity. Okay? We're going to skip jurisdiction venues and parties and we're going to get some of the factual background. Okay? And they say talk about what they think happened that Karen Reed said, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him." And again, to me, another stupid argument and stupid thing to do is to say Karen Reed admitted or knew that she hit. And we're going to see some different ways that they do that and just how that does not fly in this type of a claim, right? You can try to use it to prosecute somebody and if the jury takes it as a confession, fine.
The cops there that night didn't take it as a confession, but whatever. But to say that that is the basis, right? And kind of spoiler alert, but we're going to get there. They're going to use that as the basis, the I hit him, I hit him, I hit him, and some of the things she said in interviews as the knowledge that she hit him. Therefore, what she is saying about the people inside the house um being responsible for John O'Keefe's death, she knows that's that that that's a lie. And so does Aiden Cardney.
And that's maybe where this all falls apart like a house of cards. Uh shortly after her arrest and consistent with her several admissions of liability, Reed's council, Yianetti, told the court that O'Keefe's death was an accident by calling the charges a tremendous reach and explaining that Reed had no criminal intent. So, we've heard that hearing before. That is something they're going to use and argue. That's a legal argument. They're never going to get into what Karen Reed told David Yunetti.
That is attorney client privilege. So, good luck using whatever that is to prove that she knowingly lied.
And again, we have to also remember when evidence came out and what you can learn when you see more evidence. In January of 22, Carney's occupation was that of an aspiring internet personality with limited reach in the greater Boston area. He primarily commented on sports and other media reports. Carney's objective was to attract attention to himself in order to build a brand and monetize his audience. To do so, Carney routinely engaged in provocation and courted controversy. While he described himself at times as a journalist, in fact, Carney has no journalistic training, editorial standards, or oversight. We don't need to get into modern day versus, you know, traditional media outlets, but he would probably agree with most of that paragraph.
All right. The launch of the defamation campaign despite her several admissions of liability. Again, that is what they're hanging on and that has to be true that she knows she did this and decided to lie and defame these plaintiffs. Okay? And we're going to take that as true as we read through this complaint. But that has been a really difficult thing for anybody to prove in court that it was actually an admission that she knew what happened, that she's the one that did it. By the time she was indicted and arrested on charges related to June, oh, sorry, was in June of 2022, Reed had set in motion a defamation campaign to falsely blame others for O'Keefe's death to escape responsibility for her own culpability.
So, it's another kind of interesting aspect of third party culpability, a defense pointing the finger at somebody else. Obviously, that's not defamation.
Obviously, lawyers are allowed to do that. That's allowed to be legal strategy if there's enough evidence.
Different states kind of handle it different ways. You can put up a third party culprit defense. And even if you know your client did it right, you're allowed to do that and that's not defamation. So how is this different?
And they're going to show how this is different than that. Prior to her arraignment, re read falsely denied responsibility for O'Keefe's death and contrary to her prior admissions falsely stated law enforcement officers that she was not responsible for O'Keefe's death.
Okay. Again, to try and use her statements during a criminal process where she pled not guilty, maintained her innocence, and then went on to win is just a losing loser losers argument.
You don't want to use that in front of a judge or a jury. That is not the way to do this. But on the other hand, while I am hammering that strategy, they do have to prove that they knew what they were saying is false. Right? So without this, how do they prove that?
Uh she falsely say instead she falsely claimed that O'Keefee had been beaten up by Brian and Colin Colin Albert. Reed knew this statement was false because she has to for this to work. They've got to prove she knew it was false. And again, they have probably text messages, emails, signal messages, phone calls. I don't know that I've never seen. So, there could be more evidence out there than what I've seen, right? What I've seen is basically what's in the criminal trial and what's publicly available. I don't ever want anybody to send me anything that's not publicly available.
We all know AI is coming, but most of us don't know how to use it appropriately or efficiently or responsibly in our place of business. So, let me introduce you to today's sponsor, Outskill. It's an AI focused education platform designed to help you actually apply AI in your work. And it's already impacted over 10 million people across 100 plus countries. And the best part, it's completely free, so you can explore, learn, and see real value. Outskills 2-day live AI mastermind is happening this weekend, 16 hours from 10:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m. EST on Saturday and Sunday.
Designed for a global audience with a wells suited time in just 16 hours.
Here's what you'll master. Building AI agents that plan, execute, and report for you. Automating workflows that run even while you sleep. connecting tools like Sheets, Notions, etc. to create profitable systems using AI to save hours of work every week. You'll also go back with free bonuses worth $5,000.
Also, right now, just by registering, you'll get access to their exclusive AI survival hackbook, which will itself keep you informed about the major AI shifts happening around. They have a great 4.9 out of five rating at Trust Pilot and an impressed array of learners. Just click on that link in the description or scan the QR code and stay updated by joining their WhatsApp community before the big blast. Uh, read. So again, Reed knew the statement was false, that Brian Albert and Colin Albert had nothing to do with O'Keefe's death because she knew that she had hit O'Keeffe with her car causing his death.
Okay, how are they going to prove that?
We'll talk about it. Reed's false accusations, because they have to be false, against Brian Albert and Colin Albert was recorded on police body camera and released to the public during the pre-trial of April in April 24. To facilitate the spread and publication of her lies, Reed found and enlisted Carney. Reed used an intermediary and her counsel to correspond with Carney to conceal the defendant's relationship and to create a basis upon which she could possibly plausibly deny her role in Carney's false claims. It's like you're saying she made the claims and you're saying she needed Carney to make the claims. So which is it right? If they both made the claims, some of this doesn't make sense, but it does make her look bad and her attorneys potentially if what they're saying is true here.
Pursuant to this scheme, Carney would publicize and widely disseminate Reed's false claims about plaintiffs and others in an effort to destroy the reputations of these individuals so that Reed could evade responsibility for causing the death of John O'Keefe. As part of the scheme, Reed sought to launder defamatory material by gratuitously including it in pleadings filed with the court. For example, on April 12th, Reed through her council filed the discovery motion for a second time to obtain Brian Albert's phone, for which she falsely stated Brian Albert and Colin Albert were responsible for O'Keefe's death, and that McCabe was the mastermind who covered it all up. Reed knew these statements were false. It's like putting these in court documents hurts your argument. The fact that they were arguing they deserve discovery because of this hurts your argument. They should have gotten this in discovery, in my opinion, because they had a good faith reason to believe that that might be a potential third party culprit, and they should have gotten this before these phones were destroyed.
So that's what's tough is taking this as true is what we're trying to do. It's more difficult after we've already had a trial and a decision by a jury with certain of these things being discovery decisions. Reed through her counsel also attack and by the way I'm going to have some good things to say about this complaint later and some things that are scary for Turtle Boy and Karen Reed. So it's not all not all going to be that way. There's there's a little there's cutting both in here. Reed through her council also attached several non-public documents to the filing that had zero relevance to the narrow issue before the court. The purpose and part of those extraneous non-public documents was to convey them surreptitiously to Carney who then would amplify the public dissemination of the defamatory material all in furtherance of the defendants's def defamation scheme. For example, Reed attached an unredacted copy of the Canton Police Department's incident report that listed the private addresses, cell phone numbers, and social security numbers of the plaintiffs. Reed made this filing indirect violation of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 1.24 and did so for the purpose of giving this information to Carney so that he would further disseminate Reed's false claims. So, are they going to be able to prove this? Will there be anything else coming from this? Right? Because if she's violating court orders, is she going to be held in contempt? Is she going to be sanctioned somehow? Are her lawyers going to be sanctioned? Because they definitely believe Yiani and Jackson were involved in all of this.
With encouragement and direction from Reed, Carney published the first blog post days after receiving these false statements from Reed. Indeed, prior to Carney's April 18th, 2023 publication, Carney shared his draft blog with Reed through her intermediary, who provided Carney with dozens of corrections, which Carney understood to be from Reed. After Carney received and adopted these corrections, Reed through her intermediary texted Carney Amaze ball sauce and thank you so much. Then on April 18th, and I assume they're going to be able to prove this with text messages. I haven't seen it, but they have Reed's phone and Carney's phone was downloaded. So, I assume they have at least some of this and I would assume they have the third party intermediaries phone as well, but I don't know. They got to be able to prove it if they're going to put it in this complaint.
Then on April 18th, 2023, defendants defamation campaign went public when Carney published the first two parts of his can cover up series. In part one, Carney stated that Jennifer McCabe did not kill John O'Keefe since he's not she's not physically capable of that.
Brian Albert, Colin Albert, and the dog were more than capable of that, and Colin Albert had the motive. And we know what that motive is from trial one, right? That they believed he didn't like John. McCabe was just the quarterback of the coverup. He also explained that Jennifer McCabe would never have been able to cover up this killing without the assistance of law enforcement.
Carney admitted that he made these statements based on his beliefs relayed to him by his sources. Although not identified at the time as the sources were Reed and her legal team. In part two, Carney posted screenshots of people's messages to him that were critical of his defamatory statements.
He made no effort to redact the names and proceeded to publicly mock them.
Carney claimed that most people were shocked and outraged about the mountain of evidence indicating that O'Keefe was killed by fellow BPD Sergeant Brian Albert, his nephew Colin Albert, and possibly others. To Fox News, Carney later explained, and I'm skipping some of the things that are repetitive.
Listen, we know without a doubt, beyond a shadow of a doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Aiden Carney made these statements that he believed these people were killers and cover-ups of the killers. They were responsible for John O'Keefe's death, not Karen Reed. He said that probably hundreds of times, if not thousands of times, right? He's dedicated his entire public facing YouTube channel to that. So, we're going to read some of it. We're going to skip through some of it. That's not me saying he didn't say it. He said it. That's going to be easily proven that he said all this crap. Now, the important stuff is, are they going to be able to prove that Karen Reed told him to say all this and was actually giving him this information? That's something I'm interested in with the text messages, whatever. We're going to read some of that. That's number one. Number two, did Aiden Carney believe these statements to be true or false?
That's why this is so difficult. And as bad and ugly as a lot of this is going to sound, and whoever wins this case is going to take a big victory lap, but that's really what it's going to turn on. And that's always the difficulty when it comes to defamation cases. To Fox News, Carney later explained that after he published the beginning of his Canton Coverup series, his blog exploded. He had a record- setting audience with over half a million views.
Elsewhere, Carney explained that when he would first go live on his YouTube channel, he would usually have about 300 live viewers, but he had over 2,000 on the first night during his first live stream about the Canton Coverup. With his newly found audience, Carney was now able to disseminate Reed's false narrative to an even larger audience, as Reed intended. Indeed, given the success of the first show at publishing and disseminating Reed's false narrative to a wider audience, Reed's intermediary told Carney that Reed's council, Jackson Yianetti, wanted to speak directly with Carney. This conversation between Carney and Reed's council occurred on April 20th, 23 in which they spoke about Reed's campaign. Carney secretly recorded that conversation.
Now, they don't say that I have that, I don't think. Do they have that recorded conversation? And this is like a lawyer's nightmare and why you don't get in bed with people like this that might do something like this and why you have to assume that everything you say is going to be public. Everything you write in a message, everything you send in a text and even what you say in phone calls sometimes if you know the type.
So, this could get ugly and this could be embarrassing. I don't know what's in there. I don't know if it's true. Nobody seems very um worried about it. I'll try to remember. Uh, we will try to remember to talk about their statement. Let me make a note.
So, we'll read the read team statement.
And of course, Turtle Boy's already going out and making videos about this, right? So, unashamed, unabashed, leaning in. This is his content. This is, you know, his life. This is everything. Uh, another thing that's going to be easily proven is that this was disseminated and that tons of people saw this. Millions of people saw all the things that Turtle Boy was saying. So those things that sometimes are difficult to prove in defamation cases, that's easy. He said it. He said things that are going to be outrageous, right, for the IIDed claims and he disseminated out to tons of people.
But does it legally fit into any protections or does it fit into actually things that can be winning causes of action for the plaintiffs?
With his newly found audience, Carney was now able to disseminate, did I already say that wider audience? Yeah, I already said all that. 2 days after speaking directly to Reed's council on April 22nd, 23, Carney made additional false statements at the direction of Reed. So, was she telling him to lie?
Was she saying this isn't true, but still say this? Cuz that's kind of what this complaint sounds like. And if that is true, they're in trouble. Reed and Carney are in trouble. If there are recorded conversations or text messages or emails saying this isn't true, but say it anyway. We know this isn't real, but this is what we want you to say.
Twist it and make it sound like this.
That's the type of verbage that I would like to see if they're going to have a chance to win this case. Without that verbiage, if she's just saying these are the people that did it, make sure everybody knows it.
Is that defamation legally? No.
Uh Carney made additional false statements at the direction of Reed in episode 575 of his Weekend Live. Carney repeated Reed's false claim that O'keefee was killed inside 34 Fairview during a fight with Colin Albert and or Brian Albert. And by the way, why I don't believe this stuff actually exists that, you know, she said this is a lie or said because they filed all these lawsuits against all these people saying the same exact thing. They've made these arguments in criminal court multiple times. They're making it in civil court in multiple different jurisdictions in federal and state. If they knew all of this was a lie, I would be absolutely floored if these lawyers would be okay with it and would do it.
But they're they're saying in this complaint they knew it was all a lie.
Uh during a fight with Colin andor Brian Albert during that show, Carney also used the phone numbers that Reed and her council intentionally made public in their April 12th, 2023 rule 17 motion.
Carney used those numbers to call McCabe and Albert and directly accuse them both of a coverup. Car's voicemail left on Brian Albert's phone asked, "Did you kill John O'Keefe or was it your nephew Colin? And are you covering for him? How did your dog get downstairs and begin biting Mr. O'Keefe? So, these are all things. What happened?
These are all things that like were the continued narrative throughout multiple litigations and they're putting them down on paper here, acting like they're proven false.
And we've got the aha gotcha moment.
That that's what I'm kind of struggling with as I read some of this. All right.
Indeed, minutes after Carney's April 22nd broadcast ended, Yanetti was watching in the live broadcast. Messaged Carney congratulating him. That was priceless, dude. Great effing show.
Really enjoying the turtle reporting.
Okay, again, not admitting that it's false. Will a judge be like, "Dude, you probably shouldn't have done this."
Like, when we hear if a judge reviews Aiden Carney's YouTube channel, they're going to find out it's crude and crass and says things that would make a sailor blush. As I've said before, probably not a lot of things that they would love to hear or want, you know, their kids to hear, whatever it may be, right? They're not going to like his style, what he says, and how he says it. And I do not blame them at all. And so, it might be like not a good look for these lawyers to be associated with him. But is it defamation? Is it harassment? Is it intentional infliction of emotional distress? Those are the big questions in this case because none of that's changed. I think Turtle Boy knows what he's doing. I think he's picked a lane and stuck in that lane from what I can see, right? And I think that that I don't I never knew who he was before this Karen Reed case, but you know, every clip everybody's ever sent me is kind of the same mo and the same deal. And he's been dealing with a lot of crap because of it, right, with uh exgirlfriends and lawsuits and restraining orders and being thrown in jail and criminal charges and whatever.
He's dealing with a lot and he doubles and triples down. So, there's no way around the vibe of the channel, right?
It is what it is and anybody who goes and looks at it is going to see that.
There's no hiding from it. And I don't think they're going to try to. Yet, Reed and her council repeatedly deceived the public about Reed's coordination and relationship with Carney in part because they knew that using Carney as a defamation mouthpiece could subject Reed to civil liability for defamation and related civil misconduct. And you'll also see like how this develops over time, like how what their relationship was like in the beginning is different than it is now or was later in the case.
For example, during a September 23 Boston magazine interview, Reed and her council stated that they had never been in contact with Kierney. This statement was false and intended to hide the fact that Carney was carrying out Reed's defamation scheme. So that's bad. If there's recorded phone calls and text messages that prove you're talking to him and you say you've never been in contact with him, that's bad. Lying is always bad. And whether it's a lawyer lying, whether it was Karen Reid lying, always bad. Would not recommend, would condemn, would say, don't do that.
That's bad.
But lying about being in contact with him is not defamation. The weather is starting to turn and it's absolutely beautiful outside, at least in Florida, and I know many other states, but being outside so much can be really bad for your skin. But that's where today's sponsor, One Skin, comes in with their scientifically backed products to help your skin. now and into the future. For those of you familiar with One Skin, you know how their patented OS1 peptide is scientifically proven to target aging at the cellular level. It's what powers their skinincare. Every claim is based on lab or clinical studies. One Skin's lotions just feel different on my skin.
So, the only skincare routine I've ever had is One Skin. Born from over 10 years of longevity research, One Skin's OS1 peptide is proven to target the cells that cause the visible signs of aging.
So, your skin and your hair stay healthy now and as you age. For a limited time, try Oneskin with 15% off using code lyk at onskin.coyk.
That's 15% off oneskin.co with code lyk. And after you purchase, they're going to ask you how you heard about them. So, please support our channel and let them know we sent you.
Moreover, 20 months after telling Carney that his April 22nd, 23 show accusing McCabe, Brian Albert, and Colin Albert of being involved in the death of John O'Keefe was a great effing show, Yiani disavowed Reed's relationship with Carney in in an address he gave at Boston College Law School on November 1124 regarding Reed's first trial. Yiani said he had concerns about Carney and he was someone you want to keep at arms length. I don't know why that would be different than anything else. Just saying you had a good show or even talking to somebody one or two times, that's kind of the definition of keeping him at arms length. He's not in the inner circle, right? That's the difference of keeping somebody at arms length. But whatever. I They're trying to make the lawyers look bad, but like to me, if they really felt like they had the goods on Yiani and Jackson, they would also be defendants here. And so they kind of tiptoe around both sides of it. Like Yiani bad, Jackson bad. They were orchestrating all of this, but they're not included as defendants. So, it kind of makes me think maybe it's not as strong of an argument as they're trying to make it seem, but we'll see.
Uh, Yiani also said, notwithstanding his undisclosed direct and indirect communications and coordination with Carney, that Carney's tactics are not the tactics of a refined defense attorney. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. I obviously agree with uh David Yedetti there. Similarly, Jackson publicly denied communicating and coordinating with Carney. And by the way, these are all allegations. We're taking them as true. I'm not saying they're true. I don't know if they're true or not. I assume there's going to be a fight, a legal battle for all of this. Um, I'm also interested if Yianetti and Jackson are going to be involved at all in defending Karen Reed in this because if they're such big parts of it and their names come up so much, is that going to create some kind of conflict? Um, Jackson denied involving Kierney in Reed's public strategy. Yet, during the same interview, Reed acknowledged that she had communicated with Carney frequently, but she limited the that disclosure, claiming the only that the two only spoke in the months leading up to her March 24 criminal trial. And again, lying about your relationship with Aiden Carney, bad. You shouldn't do that. Doesn't prove defamation. April 24th, 23, Carney published part 10, I'm not condoning it. Not condoning lying ever at all, but we're looking at this legally. Uh, published part 10 of his Canton Co-Up series wherein he again accused Mabe of covering up a murder and pretending to be a compassionate person while a completely innocent woman faces decades in prison. In response, Reed through her intermediary messaged Carney stating, "Please tell Carney that article might be his best so far."
Carney responded, "Really? That from her?" The intermedi intermediary replied, "Yes." And I'm sure it was a big deal, right? He's getting fame. He's getting money. I'm sure he was giddy about it.
But is she saying, "Thank you for publishing lies. I'm glad you're tricking the public. Let's keep duping them." Because that's what I would need if I was a juror. That's what I would need to see.
I mean, even as a judge looking at this, because we're gonna see discovery, what they find out like what did Karen Reed and Carney know? What did they say? If there's nothing to because there's plenty of evidence I can produce. If I was representing Reed or Carney, there's plenty of evidence I can produce that they actually do believe this, that this is a firmly held belief of truth. They believe what they're saying is factually true, and they're willing to go to jail for it. They're willing to spend tons of money filing lawsuits and fighting lawsuits over it. They believe this to be true.
It's kind of like when people talk about um you know, did Jesus die and and rise again? And you know, I know people have their response on it, but one of the arguments for it is the people that saw him and continue to argue that it was true ended up getting killed for that belief. So that's one of the arguments that they actually believed it. Now, you can tell me it's wrong. That's fine. I would disagree with you. But they believed it, right? You usually don't get crucified or hung on a cross for something that you know is a lie. If you made it up completely yourself, are you willing to do that? Now, it could be diabolical and maybe it's worth the money and the fame and the greed and whatever it may be. I mean, worth it to read potentially to stay out of jail for the rest of her life to lie about all this stuff. Is it worth it to Aiden Carney to lie about all this stuff for the fame and the money and everything else? That's what they're going to have to prove because from the outside looking in, and I've never spoken to to I I I DM'd with Aiden Carney like two times. um never spoken to him in person, never spoken to Karen Reid, but from my perspective, everything from an outsider looking in is they believe this. That that's what I think it looks like. Now, they could obviously be lying. They could be tricking this stuff could be true, but what is a jury going to see? What is a jury going to believe? Is a jury going to believe that, oh, yeah, they know all this is lies and all of their actions prove that. or are they going to say maybe this is something they actually do believe to be true and they have some evidence that backs up that belief.
Right? That's kind of the interesting thought process we're going through here. All right. They continue with the Canton cover up and the conspiracy continues. Read through the intermediary responded that Brian and Nicole and Chris and Julie all testified he was there talking about Colin being at 34 Fair View. But I can't send the grand jury testimony because it's sealed. And they say that statement was not true. No witness has ever testified that Colin Albert was at 34 Fair View on January 29th. And then here's the important part after Reed's vehicle arrived at that location. So, we're going to quibble about some facts and details or whatever it may be, but generally what they're trying to do is show Reed was disseminating information to Aiden Carney that she shouldn't have been and Reed and her team were willing to lie in this circle of Aiden Carney. So, those two separate things they're trying to merge together to say, "So, therefore, Reed and Carney were lying about this information." doesn't always work like that, right? Even if she lied about this, saying they testified that Colin was in the house, we know how it came out that Colin was never in the police reports and there were witnesses that he was there at some point, right? So, there's these you don't want these gray areas and these quibbling of facts when you file a lawsuit like this and you have the burden of proof. Those are not usually good things. The same day, Reed also informed in informed Carney through the intermediary about the details of an alleged non-public ongoing separate investigation into related law enforcement investigation of O'Keefe's death in a message to Carney through the intermediary, not public. The feds have been involved longer than anyone is likely guessing. Okay. Should she have done that? No. If taking these as true, right? But does that prove defamation or is that actually a true statement that the feds were in fact involved?
Eventually, Reed and Carney started communicating directly. Reed utilized Signal, which is encrypted. We've heard about Signal. Reed and Carney ultimately exchanged over 189 phone calls totaling more than 40 hours in 2023 alone, not including the countless messages exchanged through Signal. It's a lot, right? So, again, if we're trying to figure out what are they going to be able to prove, what are they not? Civil conspiracy is one of these uh causes of action. And we're going to go through all of them at the end, but them working together to discuss this information and come up with a plan. I think they plausibly can prove that. I think it is possible that they prove something like that. That they worked together, they shared information, he was sharing stuff that I don't know that she would directly tell him what to say, but sharing it in hopes that she would like it. Is that like conspiring? No. I think it would have to be more she was telling him what to say. They were working together for information. um she would have come out some kind of a say in what he was publishing. And I just find that like there's almost no way that anybody else would have told Turtle Boy like you have to say this that or say it this way, right? It's it's different than like if you have a source and that source is sharing stuff with you and does that put you in a conspiracy and what if that source is lying to you and you're just printing what they tell you and you believe it to be true? It also bears mentioning that it can't be something that you say you believe is true but is so obviously false, right?
That would be different. Like to say, I don't know.
I got to be careful what I say. You get my point, right? Just something that is so obviously false be like, well, I believed it. I'm dumb enough to believe it. It's like, no, you have to have some good faith belief in it and some reasons for it. And again, we've seen evidence and allegations that I think they could use to prove why they actually believe what they were saying. Kierney stated that John O'Keeffe was killed by Brian Albert and Colin Albert and the freaking dog and every other single person in that house who remains quiet to this day and participated in the lie. They're all guilty of M. As far as I'm concerned, they're participating in it. Okay, this is hyperbolic. He doesn't mean literally. He means I mean, I guess he could be literal if it was a conspiracy to commit M. um the cover up after the words, accessory after the fact, whatever it may be. But, you know, he said that Jen McCabe didn't actually do it, but her lying and covering up is as bad as it she's as guilty as them. You know, that nature of what he's saying, I don't think anybody's going to disagree with the fact that he said this, he meant this. This is exactly what his intent was to ruin their reputation.
Now, if you does anybody worry about Brian Kberger's reputation? Let me ask you that question. Anybody care about Alex Murdoch's reputation? These convicted killers. So, if you're Aiden Carney and his argument is going to be be, I believe these people killed an officer and covered it up, is he supposed to care about their reputation?
Now, you lose rights when you're a convicted criminal and you go to prison for the rest of your life that free, innocent, nonarrested people still have.
So, that's going to be another part of the waters we're waiting in in this case.
What are you allowed to do if you truly believe someone killed a friend, somebody you know, your friend's boyfriend, whatever it may be? Days later, on May 30th, Carney published another one of his Canton cover-ups where he discussed McCabe yet again, referring to her as Horseface and reposting a video that Carney previously took confronting McCabe and calling her a cop killer. Notably, the blog post covered the denial of an exparte harassment prevention order that McCabe sought against Carney in Stottton District Court based on his repeated public harassment of her. However, McCabe's HBO request was not public information. Instead, Carney received this information directly from Reed's council, Yianetti, who sent a text message to Carney that Mabe's request for an HBO had been made and denied. In particular, Yiani wrote to Carney, "HBO denied."
Interesting. I'm just I'm I'm interested like would would Carney know what the HBO is? Was there more discussion around it? It seems like some leaps are being taken maybe by some of the text messages they have. But I I'll tell you, I thought this was going to be a regurgitation of facts we already knew and a boring complaint to read. It was not. I actually thought it was a pretty well-ritten complaint. Is it true? Is it correct? I don't know. Remains to be seen. But it was different. There's a lot more information here. And if you think about what the O'Keeffe's going to do in their civil lawsuit where they said the IED stuff is about this, you know, concerted effort to defame the O'Keefe and whatever it may be. A lot of it is probably going to come from this and some of the similar evidence. So I I'm very I'm more interested in this than I thought I would be. So much Karen Reed. So many times we're going over the same facts. So many things I think can't be proven. People are going to have their It's kind of like, you know, who's better, Jordan or LeBron? I know what I believe and I think I have facts and evidence and stats to back it up.
Doesn't mean I'm wrong. Doesn't mean you can't say you believe something different. It's almost becoming something like that. Like what do you believe happened and why based on the evidence we have and we don't have and again that horrible police investigation is what creates this unknown and the big gray area where people are allowed to share their beliefs and opinions. Kernney again discussed his harassment of the McCabe family, stating, "I went to her kids lacrosse game and made a scene there and got kicked out because I kept calling her a cop killer." Again, it's one thing to believe somebody did something. This may be another. I don't think judges are going to like this. You know, they've tried to get him and they, you know, have been pursuing certain charges against him while the civil court is even a lower bar. Are they going to be able to prove this is some kind of harassment or intentional infliction of emotional distress? Are you allowed to do that if you believe somebody's a killer?
Right? Because I think you can believe somebody's a killer and you can still harass them. I think you can believe somebody's a killer and you can still cause them emotional distress intentionally because it's different if they're in prison than if they're at their kids soccer game.
There's a lot more, you know, obviously talking about the YouTube channel and what he says and etc. We are going to read some of them. On September 5th, Carney directed remarks in a YouTube video towards Chris Albert, the follow father of Colin Albert. He bragged, "I go down to your pizza shop and I stand out there for an hour and I yell s about your son. You just s all over your child or I just crap all over your child, Chris. I go down there and I crap all over him and I accuse him of some of the most heinous things possible and I affect business. People don't go into your business because of the things that I'm saying. I'm telling cars that going by what your family did and what you're being accused of and what you've done to cover this up this thing up and what a scumbag you are and how you don't pay your bills. Okay. So, paying your bills is a little bit different. Is that true? Is it false? I don't know. But adding some of that, I don't think Chris Albert is even a he Yeah, Chris Albert is not even a plaintiff here.
Um, so anyways, he's admitting that he is creating financial problems for them based on what he's saying. That is an element here. Those are damages. That's an element of a lot of these different um causes of action.
But if what he's saying is true, right, if people don't go to your store anymore because you actually did kill somebody, that's okay. That's allowed in America.
But where do we draw the line when somebody hasn't actually been convicted and you just believe they did this?
Because you can't just go accusing everybody of committing all these crimes and standing outside and making them lose business and saying just crazy, horrible, deranged things about people.
By early September of 2023, Reed's team was concerned that the police were potentially going to charge Carney with witness harassment if that were to happen. Reed's council, Yanetti, expressed concern to Carney that if that happens, then a judge prohibits you from having contact with witnesses. This prospect concerned Reed Yianetti and Jackson since they feared silencing Kierney would impact the defendants's campaign against the plaintiffs. Indeed, on September 9, 2023, Yianetti messaged Carney regarding the plaintiffs stating, "These bees deserve all the scorn we are giving them." With Carney silenced, the scorn Reed intended to incite might diminish. And again, all the scorn we are giving them. Yet, no we lawyers in the complaint. In addition to using Carney as a tool to seed the public discourse with defamatory material, Reed through her council also hired a private investigator, Sarah Ness. Ness had previously worked with Jackson in connection with his reputation of with his representation of disgraced sex offender Harvey Weinstein and was deployed in that case to discredit victims of Weinstein's crimes. That sounds really good. And the general public may say, "Oh, that's so bad. this Nest person must be horrible and Allan Jackson must be horrible because we think Harvey Weinstein is horrible and it's like this is criminal law. You say discredit W victims. How many alleged victims? I'm not talking about Harvey Weinstein case. I didn't follow that. I have no idea. I know scumbag, you know, is what everybody says about him and what the allegations I've seen are despicable, horrible, horrible, horrible things. Um the cases he's been convicted of, he deserves everything he's going to get. Okay, this has nothing to do with Harvey Weinstein. But to act like before trials happen and before people are convicted that there aren't witnesses or victims who are not telling the truth is unbelievable. Like you can't possibly think that every single person that's ever come out and said something happened to them is telling the truth.
The sad reality is sometimes there are false allegations and we've seen a lot of them with celebrities. You think you can get money from them, whatever it may be.
And so to condemn a defense lawyer and an investigator for talking to witnesses or talking to alleged victims in cases as if that's something that should be involved in a lawsuit and makes them worse and more likely to have uh def been defaming people and IED claims and things like that. If I was a judge, I'd be like, "Cross these paragraphs out because this is an embarrassment to the legal profession for you to act like it's a bad thing to have a an investigator go out and question witnesses and victims.
Because like victims have to take the stand in these trials. It's it's gut-wrenching many times. We see it. We talk about it. But the Constitution protects that. We have the confrontation clause. You have the right to confront the victims and the witnesses against you for these crimes before your life and liberty is taken from you.
Right? And if you hate Harvey Weinstein, I get it. But think about Karen Reed. A lot of people love Karen Reed that are going to be listening to this. Imagine if none of those witnesses were ever spoken to or cross-examined or none of the lawyers went hard at any of those witnesses. How would you have felt then with the outcome following Higgins refusal to cooperate with NES? So, Ness was trying to talk to Higgins. The defendants directed additional defamation and defamatory conduct at him as a federal law enforcement special agent with covert undercover responsibilities. Higgins suffered profound damage to his career as a result of the defendants's false and widely publicized statements that Higgins was involved in the O'Keefe's murder. So, I'm interested in like what they thought about the way he destroyed his phone on that military base and how he used his connections to do certain things and take pictures of the I'm just interested in like if that stuff is true. It seems like it's true. Um I wonder what his supervisors thought about that if that affected his career at all or if it was just the allegations that Turtle Boy was making. Um because that's another thing, right? And we learned that if you've ever handled a defamation case or in the Johnny Depp case, if you are damaged, right, in your career or your earnings go like this, what caused it? Was it Amber Heard? Was it Turtle Boy? Was it Karen Reed? Or was it actually your own actions? What you said, what you did? Same thing with the Baldonian and Lively stuff, right? Like did people talk negatively about you because of what I said or because of what people posted or because of what you said in an interview or how you acted or what you wore or whatever it may be. You have to actually prove where that damage came from. Higgins suffered okay profound damage his career as a result of their widely publicized statements that he was involved in.
Okay. In addition, due to Reeds and Carney's defamation, individuals have traveled to Higgins residence for the purpose of taking photographs and videos. Higgins has been surveiled and individuals inspired by Reeds and Carney's defamation campaign have trespassed and vandalized his property.
Carney himself has personally harassed Higgins by visiting Higgins residents on multiple occasions for the purpose of confronting him and generating conduct content, sorry, to be published on platforms Carney controls. And again, where these lines are, how bad this is, um what damage you're causing, how judges or juries looked at this. I think there's a lot of things that could be over the line here potentially on how you look at it. But I think there are problems with the overarching theme of spreading a false story that you know to be false and lying and committing fraud basically with what you're putting out there in defaming all of these people.
That overarching issue is not something that can be taken lightly. On September 19th, Carney hosted his weekly show and his show he said, "What I'm saying right now, I'm not saying as a matter of opinion. I'm saying this as a matter of fact." Okay? And they're trying to use this because opinions can be protected. Factual statements are different when it comes to defamation.
Jen McCabe participated in the killing and plan to kill and cover up of the death of John O'Keefe. I'm saying that that is not my opinion. That is a fact.
Okay.
The argument is all still the same here.
He went on to taunt McCabe by exclaiming, "Chen McCabe participated in killing John O'Keefe. So, so sue me. Why don't you just sue me? Because you did it. Because she did it. That's why because she did it and again now she is suing him.
What's going to happen?
Thrilled by the level of exposure and overall impact Carney's publications were having on Reed's defamation campaign, Reed messaged Carney through Signal on September 29th stating, "Look at what you've done to their reputations and to my jury pool. Chris Albert's business is ne is the next casualty.
just a matter of time. Reed was referring to the public degradation of the reputations of among others the plaintiffs. Okay, so intent was there actual malice here, right? I think they can prove it. They intended to destroy these people, destroy their reputations and their livelihoods, come after them for everything they possibly could. Why? What motivated that? Was it lies? Was it defamation? Or was it they wanted the truth to get out there and they knew that the truth would crush their reputation because they killed an officer? Same thing that happened to Karen Reed when she was accused of it and a lot of people said she did it. This is incredibly interesting to me just legally speaking.
This is very different from any defamation case I've ever seen.
Right. It's very different than saying like you're an abuser and you abused me and if that's a lie then that's defamation. If it's true then it's not.
The profit model. Okay, here's an interesting section and again this comes down to what is the judge or jury going to know about YouTube? Carney's willingness to work with Reed and his conduct is based on two motives, greed and fame.
For example, during one of his live streams, he listed that Stephanie sends 10 bucks and says Brian Higgins car uh front of mailbox. How does that work?
Help. Thank you very much, Stephanie.
Jim Ferris Buer sends five bucks and says, "Hey, liberants, that shirt's going to irritate your nips." Jason EMT sends five bucks. No comment. Thank you, Jason EMT. Carrie sends five bucks and says, "What news station is covering this trial?" All of them. All of them.
Brooke sends 250 and says, "Free Karen Reed." And can you say, "Hi, Jennifer."
Hi, Jennifer. Greg sends $50 and says, "Class of 94. We love you, John." Great to see chat that. Great to see that.
Sorry. Great to see that. Great to see that. Thank you very much, Greg. Okay.
Laura sends 10 bucks and says, "Please wear that shirt to court on Tuesday."
After personally recognizing his followers, Carney goes on to direct his followers to donate to him at the link on his website or directly through his cash app. Okay, the funny wild world of YouTube. Is a judge going to understand this? Are they going to get an expert?
How are they going to explain this and the crazy things that people say? Are they going to attribute that to Turtle Boy himself?
I just I some of this is going to be when I say the word fun, I don't think it's fun for anybody. I would never say like, "Hey, yeah, sue me or you're not somebody till somebody sues you and this is going to be so great now that you're getting sued." I don't say that to any client ever. I think it sucks to get sued. Civil litigation, criminal litigation, it all sucks. You don't want to be a part of it as a as a party.
Okay? But from a lawyer's perspective who talks about this stuff on YouTube and learns from these, you know, oneofone cases that will probably never happen again, this is a very interesting kind of fact pattern to me that I want to see how it all fleshes out. Carney has estimated his monthly income to be $45 to $50,000, which he attributes to his defamatory discussions on the Reed case.
I assume he doesn't call them defamatory discussions, but if he does, that would be problematic. Carney publicly defends this corrupt business model by explaining, well, it's capitalism. If a service that people if he creates a service that people think is worth giving their hard-earned money to, that's capitalism. That's their choice.
He claims that people want to give him money. People want to buy Turtle Boy subscriptions. People want to buy stuff from the store. We're going to talk more about this when we get to the cause of action that this connects with. If you're wondering why they're talking about this, Carney also sought production and movie deals to further monetize his highly public defamation and harassment campaign against plaintiffs. On July 1st, 23, just three months after Carney began working with Reed to disseminate her false claims and harass witnesses. Carney reported to Jackson that he had received an offer from a Karen Reed documentary from B7 Entertainment, a California production company. Then we get to the trial. He proceeded to claim that they can't find a jury in the United States, America, anywhere in the country because turtle boy is too big. Meaning people know about this. He's talked about it. He has spread it. Carney went on to say that McCabe is a sick and sadistic and twisted and that he has nothing but hatred to her as I should because I'm normal. I'm a rational person. Any rational person hates Jennifer McCabe and is disgusted with her because Jennifer McCabe is a pig. She's a pig.
She's a cop killing pig. He proceeded to mock the Court TV host again by saying she supports a cop killing pig like Jennifer McCabe who googled how long to die in the cold.
These are opinions. Are they going to be ones that shock the conscience that people should not be allowed to say that inflict emotional distress on others intentionally why you're doing this and how you're doing this? Or is this going to be protected speech that you are allowed to say especially when you feel this way about somebody and you think it's actually true?
On May 17th, 2024, following the first day of McCabe's trial testimony, Carney posted to X that Mabe was a psychopath and that she knew exactly where O'Keeffe was dying dying in the cold on Brian Albert's front lawn. She plotted to put him there. Another thing that I just feel like I have to mention. Um, one of the things we as lawyers do is fight for people to be able to do things that we disagree with. Right?
That comes with freedom of religion.
freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly. We're not going to agree with what everybody does in all of those situations. We definitely don't agree with all of the causes, but we fight for them. We fight for those rights for you to be allowed to do the things that our Constitution allows you to do because when those rights go away and the government takes control, now we're just sitting here where it's like any individual, and we know how corrupt our politicians are, right? I don't care which side of the aisle you're on. Pick a politician, I don't trust them. I don't want them making decisions about my life.
I don't want them being the end- all beall. I'll take our imperfect justice system over that any day. On June 7th, 2024, Carney joined the Morning Club YouTube channel to discuss the retrial.
After being praised for literally creating all of the fanfare surrounding Reed's trial, Carney touted that people believed in response to Carney's coverage of the case that the plaintiffs engaged in a legitimate cover up and a framing of an innocent woman in order to protect some of the most unlikable people ever. Like, it's not like they're trying to cover up and protect likable nice people. They're protecting Jennifer McCabe, who nobody likes. She's like a Disney villain. She's so bad. And you're like protecting her of all people. So, one of the other things that's interesting about the fact that if we didn't have the first trial, I also think this would be kind of a different thought exercise. But because we because we have the first trial, and that was literally what the lawyers argued during the first trial, so many people probably had it ingrained in their brain if they believed it, if they ran with it, if they thought that it was true during that first trial. So much that came from the lawyers and they believed it was true because it came from the actual courtroom in the trial regardless of what Turtle Boy said. Now, he's going to always take credit, right? He's going to say, "I did all this. I did all this."
And I don't think he's afraid of taking that credit. They're trying to use him taking that credit against him here.
He's going to say, you know, he did it all. Everybody knows about Karen Reed because of him. He broke the story. He gave all the information. Everybody came to him, right? And he was a huge part of it. No doubt about it. and he obviously had a direct link so it seems um to Karen Reed which is why he was able to let out so much information but some of the theories and themes they're talking about that somebody did this inside 34 fair viewer that these four plaintiffs specifically did I'm just so interested in all the different ways this has come out how you sue two individual people for this defamation like is somebody going to know for sure maybe they will that like I heard is from Turtle Boy and not from trial or from an argument or from a court document that somebody else read that I read online that you know the lawyers put in there. You know, this is what we believe happened. Those are allegations in a court document.
Very interesting.
All right. Yanetti admitted that they wanted media coverage of Karen Reed's case. The Karen Reed case really started to blow up when Turtle Boy started shining a light on Karen's innocence.
Okay. Again, using it to try and make him look bad, using it to try and hurt him. But look what he said. shining a light on Karen's innocence because they believe Karen's innocent and if she's innocent then somebody else did it and they believe there's enough evidence to prove that somebody in the house did it and they believe they'd be able to prove it if not for the horrible police investigation. Actually, they think they can still prove it in a civil court.
Yiani did not disclose that it was Reed and her team who recruited Cardi to disseminate Reed's false statements. He didn't say anything about false statements, right? That's kind of when you're piecing stuff together and it just doesn't work.
Um, all right. Uh Karen Reed said she got nervous about who she was using as a third party, so she ended up developing a direct relationship with Carney himself. They started talking about the case probably once a day, five days or six days a week. Reed, however, failed to disclose to HBO that her council on her behalf were directly communicating with Carney at the outset of the defamation scheme.
Then the run-up to Reed's second trial, uh, he compared her to Lacy Peterson or the Scott Peterson involvement in Lacy Peterson's death. They're effing murderers. They put this in my charging document. So, let me say this in case I wasn't clear. The first thousand times that I've said this, the Mcalberts murdered John O'Keefe. They did. The Mcalberts murdered John O'Keefe because it wasn't Karen. Okay? Because it wasn't Karen. Firmly held belief. Positive evidence. good faith belief and that what he's saying is true. Those are all the arguments you're probably going to hear. And again, he is he admits he said it a thousand times, so there's not going to be any dispute whether or not he said it. Okay, now we're going to talk about this ABC episode where Reed's attorney Jackson stated referring to the plaintiffs, these sorry, there are people in that house that are actually responsible for his death and who killed him and there are others in the house who are covering up that killing.
Yeah, Jackson's not sued for defamation.
This was on ABC. This wasn't in a court document.
Interesting.
Okay, then the retrial. Carney said that O'Keefe's mother is proudly friends with the people who quite obviously killed her son.
Then Reed herself published more defamatory statements regarding the plaintiffs during her retrial. Okay, this is another one that was just like, "This is you shouldn't have put this in here. When you put this in here, if I'm a judge reading this, I'm like, Reed spoke to reporters outside the courthouse about McCabe claiming another witness, another instance of perjury or instances, I'd say referring to McCabe.
Reed said she is lying.
When you get impeached, people say that all the time. You're allowed to say that. That's not a defamatory statement.
That's a complete loser. When you put complete losers in there, it really hurts anything you have that might, if you squint, be able to look like a winner to get you far enough down the road to maybe get a settlement, which I don't see happening in this case. But Reed knew that her statements regarding McCabe and others, like the same type of statements she fed Carney, were untrue.
She knew they were untrue. That factual allegation has to be true and were intended to deflect from her own culpability. During the retrial, the prosecution presented footage of an interview with Reed and Yianetti. During the interview, Reed acknowledged that she previously expressed concern to Yianetti that she was responsible for John O'Keefe's death. Okay, so here we go. They know they have to prove that she knew these allegations were untrue.
So, how do they do it? Well, they go to that clip that was played in trial. When I hired David, I asked him some questions the night of January 29th.
Like, David, what if I don't know? What if I ran over, sorry, I ran his foot over? Or what if I clipped him in the knee and he passed out or went to care for himself and threw up or passed out? And David said, then yeah, you have some element of culpability. Then if if you did this, then you have some culpability. This was all before she had seen the evidence about the car and the light and the injuries to John O'Keefe and all of the other evidence where she very clearly believes now somebody inside 34 Fairview did this, not her.
But on January 29th, she didn't know what she knows. Now, this is not an admission. This is not the proof that you need. This is not going to be enough proof, in my opinion, that she knew what she was saying is untrue. On June 4th, Carney posted a video recapping day 27 of the retrial. Uh, Lucky Lorren, he said, "I run Canton. I'm the mayor of Canton. Look, look, look here. I'm the captain now." That's what Carney was saying, I guess. I'm the most powerful person in Canton. Lucky, you don't have to worry about them anymore. The big wolf is dead. I slayed them. The Mcalberts and and the Mabes and Alberts are nothing. Referencing the Mabes and the Alberts. He continued, "They're pissing their pants every single day, counting down the days of their freedom like Jennifer McCabe is every day. She's a free woman. She's grateful for her freedom because she knows that she is going to spend significant amount of time in federal prison and it's going to be glorious when it happens." Again, probably wrong about that statement. I think he's probably wrong about that statement.
But is that defamatory?
Does he still believe there's hope that somebody's going to arrest her for what she did or what he believes she did?
On June 1825, immediately following the conclusion of the retrial, Carney was interviewed by NBC 10 in Boston. During the interview said, "The people who killed John O'Keefe are out there.
They're the McCabes and the Alberts and John O'Keefe went into their home and never came out alive and they threw him on the lawn like trash." When asked felt responsible for the verdict, Carney explained that he was responsible for the social media aspect of it. Like I said, he is not going to not take credit for it, so none of that is going to be a surprise. On November 2nd, 25, Carney hosted his weekly show. He reacted to a podcast previously he was on that he protected Karen Reid. Oh, okay. So, he protected Karen Reed and that he lied to Boston magazine about their relationship. He explained that Reed's team did not want to publicly be associated with him. They wanted him to do the work of getting the story out there about what the Mc Alberts have done. He admitted that he understood it would be dangerous if her team were publicly tied to him, but that privately they praised him and they fully supported him.
So, he's willing to lie again about their connections, but are they lying about the facts? Two different questions. In the same video, Carney also admitted that he approached McCabe in the past to ask her questions at the direct request of Reed, Jackson, and Yianetti, again, who are not included in this lawsuit. Jackson, and Yianetti.
Reed responded that he entered the House of 34 Fairview and much sooner than later met his demise. She bluntly concluded that someone in the house killed John O'Keefe, referring to the plaintiffs, the impact of Carney and Reed's conspiracy. As a result, I don't I don't disagree with this either, right? That these plaintiffs have been damaged. Their life has been negatively affected by everything that Karen Reed and Turtle Boy have done and said.
But again, if we're comparing them to other people that people believe have committed crimes, are those damages result of actually somebody that violated a civil cause of action?
As a result of defense campaign, Bla has been forced to endure endure malicious and cruel abuse at the hands of ruthless and unscrupulous people on a regular basis. The plaintiffs have faced physical confrontation and harassment at their personal residences, their place of business, their children's extracurricular activities. The plaintiffs have also sustained a barrage of harassment and verbal assaults on social media. And I think it's horrible.
I think people should not be treated this way um in generally on social media in their life, right? I think at the end of the day, injustices suck. The cops sucked in this case, but with the evidence that we have, I'm not sure how law enforcement would ever arrest these people. So, what are we going to do?
Ruin their lives forever. I don't support that. I don't do that. I would never verbally assault these people or show up at their kids extracurricular activities. I I think all of that is horrible. I don't think people should do that. Is it something that's going to be protected? Is it something that they'll end up being criminal convictions for?
Or will they win in civil court? That still remains to be seen. The plaintiffs have also sustained a barrage of harassment and verbal assaults on social media throughout Reed's trials. And I said the same thing about um Amber Herd as well.
I disagree with them. I disagree with these plaintiffs.
I did not find them credible at trial, but I don't know what happened. And I think that all comes down to the bad investigation. Throughout Reed's trials, Karnney and his followers harassed the plaintiffs as they reported to court to serve as witnesses. The harassment was so extreme that the judge ordered a buffer zone around the courthouse to protect those inside. Kernney and his followers chanted, "Cop killers." The plaintiffs walked by and shouted, "Free Karen Reed all day." So the free Karen Reed part, it's like you shouldn't complain about that, right? She was acquitted. She is free. She legally is not responsible for Jonno Ke's death criminally speaking. So she should not be in prison. So it's like when you throw stuff like that in there, it's like the plaintiffs have had to undertake efforts to protect themselves and their identities. Their families place of business have been targeted and Carney has stalked them at their children's extracurricular activities causing fear and emotional trauma to the plaintiffs and their families. Carney admitted publicly that one of his goals of his false, outrageous and defamatory statement. They're making it sound like he's admitting that it's false and defamatory, which I don't think that he is, but that's the way it's the English way they've written this about the plaintiffs was not only to portray the plaintiffs as those responsible for O'Keefe's murder, but to also taint the jury pool for Reed's trial and to benefit financially from the publicity.
I'd like to see the quote from this. I would like to see the quote because I I could see him saying, "Yeah, I want to taint the jury pool." Um I I don't know.
We'll see. All right, let's read a couple of these counts. So, we're not going to read all of them because some of them are repetitive.
Defamation in repeatedly publishing false statements asserting or reasonably understood to be asserting that the plaintiffs were responsible for the murder of John O'Keefe and a cover up of their purported role in the murder. Reed published numerous defamatory statements both directly and through her accomplished Kierney. Check.
Everything about this is true except can you prove that they are defamatory?
Reed's statements were false. The plaintiffs did not kill John O'Keefe, did not participate in any comm conspiracy to commit murder, did not engage in any cover up of the O'Keefe's death, and did not frame Reed for murder. Reed knew her statements were false because she was present when O'Keefe was struck by her vehicle, made multiple admissions to first responders that she hit O'Keeffe, and acknowledged to her own attorney that she may have had some relevant some element of culpability in his death. Okay. Again, Reed knew her statements were false. Can they prove that? Because they're not public figures, right? And now we're get getting to the counts so we can actually get into some of the differences. I don't think they're going to argue that they're public figures. Um on the uh defense side because then it would be they have to prove that actual malice um uh element where it's like you actually know what you're saying is false. And I know that's what I've been saying throughout the document because they keep making these statements like they knew they were false and they have proof that they knew they were false. But it also has to be you know and the difference between like a factual statement and an opinion I think is also something like legally speaking we can go through. It's like they have this opinion because they believe it to be true. If you can prove it to be false, then you can still win in defamation sometimes. But in a case like this where, like I said, it's a gray area.
It's the LeBron versus Jordan debate.
That's what it feels like. I know, you know, people that are on their side.
Obviously, both sides feel like they are absolutely right about this and I totally understand that. But that's where you get into this difficulty of they actually think it's true. They actually have a good faith basis and reason to believe it's true. And I don't think anybody's going to be able to prove that it's false. So if you can't prove that it's false and they have a good faith basis to believe it's true, I just don't see that being a successful defamation case. Right? So they're even putting in here and they're pleading that she knew her statements were false.
So if you're going to plead that, you got to prove that. Um but I I don't think that the defamation statute um in Massachusetts for non-public figures would actually put that onus on them.
But they are absolutely putting taking on their that burden themselves. The way that I'm reading this, you know, we'll see how it actually works. Now, they're going to be able to prove that the publications were not only individually defamatory, but also part of um Oh, sorry. I mean, they're going to be able to prove that they publicized it is what I meant to say. Uh but as part of the continuous course of conduct starting at in 2023 and continuing through today stating, asserting, implying, and suggesting that the plaintiffs were responsible for the death of John O'Keeffe and engage in a cover up by in part framing Reed for O'Keefe's death.
The statements contained in Reed's campaign of harassment and abuse constitute defamation per se. The harmful nature of the defamatory statements is self-evident. The defamatory statements implicate the plaintist and heinous criminal conduct.
So that's part of defamation per se. If you accuse somebody of a crime, that's false. There you go. Um, false implications of criminal conduct constitute classic defamation per se. I would agree with that. Read statements were of and concerning each of the plaintiffs. She repeatedly identified the plaintiffs by name or audience understood the defamatory statements to refer specifically to plaintiffs. The defamatory statements were published to third parties, including Carney's hundreds of thousands of followers across multiple social media platforms, blog readers, podcast listeners, and television viewers. Re's defamatory statements have injured the plaintiff's reputations and images. I agree with that. If their defamatory statements, they've injured their reputations and images. She published them. She published her outrageous, cruel, and malicious lies about the plaintiffs negligently with knowledge statements were false, or reckless disregard as to whether or not they are true. This kind of encompasses all three of the burdens.
She either did it negligently with knowledge that they were false, which is kind of how it's been going and how it's been feeling, or with reckless disregard. Meaning, and that's the other thing, like it's so obvious that what you're saying is false and you just disregarded that. the negligent portion is going to be the thing that sometimes in defamation cases that can be enough for you as a plaintiff. I just don't think they're going to have that here. I just don't think that's going to be a winning argument that it was like, "Oopsy, I was wrong." It's like, "No, they it's well documented why everybody who says exactly what this complaint is talking about, it's documented as to why they're saying that." And that is a plausible argument that I believe some people on the jury even may have felt after that criminal case. So if that's the truth, how are you going to prove that theory to be false? Now, if Aiden Carney would have just gone on his YouTube channel and said, "I truly believe this." Like the way the lawyers did. Okay, let me just put it that way.
It's a perfect dichotomy of how this works. The lawyers are not in this complaint because the way Yanetti and Jackson and anybody else on Karen Reed's legal team has said that they believe the people in 34 Fairview, the defense attorneys in the civil case now and the her that are, you know, filing these complaints for her as well. The way they say it, you never win that defamation case. You never do. A judge would throw it out, be like, "It's a plausible explanation for somebody who was acquitted. Somebody else obviously did it. They're allowed to have that." But the actions and the way that Aiden Carney said it and what he did after the fact, going out to places and screaming this stuff and, you know, being in everybody's business and where their kids are, that creates a scenario where this lawsuit doesn't just go away as easily as I think it could have under different circumstances.
Count two under Aiden Carney, his statements were false. He published numer numerous defamatory statements.
Um, Carney knew had reason to believe his statements were false because he received information exclusively from Reed and her legal team who were motivated to deflect blame from Reed.
So, deflecting blame from Reed does not make something false.
It can be false. He made no independent journalistic effort to verify the accuracy of the M accusations before public before publishing them. Okay. So, again, a counter to this would be the injury to John O'Keefe's head, the hypothermia stuff, the movement of his phone, potentially the damage to her car stuff. we found out later.
So, if he didn't know at the time, but he knows now and he still believes the same thing, it's like that's where these arguments can get difficult for the plaintiffs. He repeatedly ignored and dismissed evidence contradicting his narrative. It's like so did the jury. So did the jury.
They they also ignored the evidence contradicting his narrative which is that somebody else killed John O'Keefe which the opposite of that is that Karen Reed killed him and the jury dismissed that dismissed that evidence as not credible for a million reasons. He admitted that he protected Karen Reed and lied about their relationship to conceal the source of his information.
So I will tell you this if So yeah and again that he protected Karen Reed and lied about their relationship. So again they're trying to say look he's lying.
He knew he was lying, but that's not what this is about, right? That the relationship lies is different than lying about the facts of what he believes these plaintiffs did. Now, I will tell you this would be a lot scarier for Turtle Boy had Karen Reed been convicted. Uh, these publications were not only individually defamatory, but also part of a continuous course of conduct. Statements contained Yeah.
defamation per se because they were criminal allegations. He made these defamatory statements in an effort to increase his viewership, which again, you don't need this um for defamation, but okay.
In light of his prior experience with similar sorts of negligence, reckless, or false statements, Carney knew that his publications would cause the plaintiffs to suffer harassment and potential violence. His broadcast is outrageous, cruel, and malicious. The lies about the plaintiffs. He lied negligently with knowledge. the statements were false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not they were true. And this is the interesting part.
I can't wait to see how they prove this.
That's what I really want to see. Then the aiding and abetting of defamation to me, I've never seen this. Maybe I have.
I don't know. I don't remember ever seeing. I mean, you get it like aiding and abetting of a crime or of an intentional tort. Like they helped each other do this. It's like if you have that each of them actually did it, why do you also have to have hating and abetting whatever ID for read? We are going to read the one on Carney here.
Carney's conduct was extreme and outrageous because he published over 545 blog posts and countless videos falsely accusing plaintiffs of murder. Stalked and confronted plaintiffs at their homes, workplaces, and children's extracurricular activities. Publicly released plaintiffs personal identifying information including social security numbers and home addresses and phone numbers. Organized mobs to gather outside plaintiffs homes. called plaintiffs derogatory names including cop killer pig and horseface felt or sorry left harassing voicemails for plaintiffs and their family members and encourages followers to harass and confront plaintiffs. Carney's sustained multi-year harassment campaign designed to torment the plaintiffs and profit from their misery constitutes conduct that exceeds all bounds of decency. I think this is potentially their best claim. I think this is potentially their best claim. Carney's conduct was the cause of plaintiff distress. The emotional distress sustained by plaintiff was severe. As a direct and approximate result of Carney's conduct, the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, including but not limited to anxiety, fear for their personal safety, and the safety of their families, depression, humiliation, damage to personal professional relationships, and the inability to participate in normal daily activities without fear of harassment or confrontation. Carney's conduct was so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
So, where's First Amendment? What are we allowed to do? What are we not allowed to do? What if we believe somebody um killed our friend or our friend's boyfriend? Like where are the lines and did he cross them? That's I think the most interesting legal question in this case. In light of prior experiences with type of negligent, false and reckless statements, defendant knew his publications would cause harm. Okay.
Then we have aiding in embedding of IED, which again is weird to me, not normal.
Um negligent infliction of emotional distress. This feels more intentional.
like if you're going to win, I feel like you have enough information and what they did that they did it on purpose to cause the emotional distress. It's not going to be negligent, but this kind of makes me feel that they, you know, are throwing everything against the wall, which happens sometimes in um civil cases. And then just in case we didn't check the boxes on all the aiding and abetting. They didn't just aid in a bet on defamation. They didn't just aid in a bet on IIED. There's also aiding and abetting on negligent inflation of emotional distress. Count 13 is the civil conspiracy count. We know exactly what this is like from uh the Karen Reed case. Very similar. There's an agreement. The agreement is evidenced by their use of intermediaries and encrypted communications. So I do think that the conspiracy part, right, they did get together. They did work together. I think they might be able to prove that. But to do what? Did they do it to defame, harass, abuse, intimidate?
Or did they do it to try and prove that Karen Reed was innocent and that they believe these people are the ones that actually did it and they wanted law enforcement to go file charges against them?
That'll be the question they got to answer. All right, count 14. Uh, Massachusetts unfade unfair trade practices act. And I want to read this together because this to me was also very interesting. Um, I' I've handled some claims like this. You know, again, 99% of my practice is negligence, wrongful death, right? Those are the those are the causes of action. Truck accidents, car accidents, premises cases, um, nursing home negligence, whatever, maybe a wrongful death case.
So, they're very similar causes of action to what we're we're filing all the time. and we've done some IED. I don't love it. It's, you know, difficult. Um, but these claims I've had a little bit of experience with, but it's normally like, you know, a company lies about what they do. They commit fraud to get people to give them money, and it's like a very common one. This is such an interesting format to put this cause of action. So, I want to read it and kind of just think through it together. We're almost done.
This is the last cause of action. Hit the like button. By the way, we're over an hour. If you haven't hit the like button yet, hit the like button. If you haven't subscribed, subscribe. It's a different case. I know some people are sick of Karen Reed. I understand that a lot of people still ask me questions about it. Five days a week, plenty of videos to do. So, once in a while when something pops, like this was a big deal. I thought about not doing it. When John text me when it came out, I was like, I don't know. Should we? Then when I read it, I was like, this is pretty interesting. So, we're going to read it.
Um, okay. Let's read this last cause of action. Carney in the course of trade commerce un of trade of trade or commerce sorry unnethically oppressively immorally and unscrupulously developed propagated and disseminated outrageous and malicious lies. Okay, there's another part they're going to have to prove lies about the plaintiffs and their family members and he did so for profit. I think that they're going to be able to prove that Carney operates a commercial enterprise through which he monetizes content by selling subscriptions, merchandise featuring the plaintiff's names and likeness and advertising and by soliciting donations. Carney's defamatory statements about the plaintiffs were integral to his commercial business model and were designed to attract paying customers and generate revenue. So, it's like his whole business is based on this. His whole business is based on pointing this out, calling them out, you know, accusing them of these crimes and all this stuff is lies. And so his whole business is built on lies and this is the only way he makes money on this you know commercial enterprise. This campaign of lies, abuse, harassment was a deceptive and unfair practice and offered sorry offended public policy.
Carney's conduct constitutes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts of practices in the conduct of trade or commerce within the meaning of MGL C93A section 2 which again connects to the the federal deceptive trade practices uh statutes which is basically like lying to people about what your product is to get them to buy it like oh this is a healthy food and it's actually kills you or the credit unions get in trouble for this sometimes a lot of times it's affecting competition it's using deceptive practice ices.
It's very interesting how they're going to argue all of this connects to a YouTube channel um from Turtle Boy.
Again, I think there are civil causes of action. If you think he's doing what you're accusing him of, and you filed a lot of them above, like ID, defamation, whatever it may be, this one to me is a bit of a reach. Uh Carney's reprehensible conduct caused substantial injury to the plaintiffs that is not outweighed by any contraven contra counterveailing benefits to consumers or competition and that the plaintiffs themselves could not have reasonably avoided. Carney's monetization of defamatory content about private individuals constitu an unfair business practice. Plaintiffs are consumers and Carney's actions caused them to suffer significant damages uh interalia money or property. Carney's conduct was a foreseeable cause of and a substantial factor in causing a plaintiff's injuries broadcast outrageous cruel malicious lies about the plaintiffs. His conduct was willful and knowing entitled plaintiffs to an award of double or triple damages. Okay. Carney deliberately built a commercial enterprise around defaming the plaintiffs knowing his statements were false or acting with reckless disregard of the truth of their falsity. Okay. Uh plaintiffs through their council served a demand letter on Carne at least 30 days prior to filing this complaint detailing and underlying the facts of this. So anytime a lot of the ones that have like the double or triple damages um you have to serve a demand letter, wait 30 days and then file the lawsuit.
I guess that's what this one requires as well. Very interesting. you know, file final cause of action to me. Listen, all of this is going to come down to what everything in this case has come down to. What can you prove? That's why I said it might be difficult for Karen Reed to win her civil case. Can she prove what happened inside 34 Fair View with the way the investigation went and the information that we have, but even harder so it seems because the prosecutor and all their might and all their power and everybody usually believing the prosecutors are right and that cops are good and they're telling the truth, they could not con convict Karen Reed. One attempt, two attempts, she ends up with an acquitt on everything that had to do with John O'Keefe's death. So, I find this very hard to believe that they are going to prove these statements to be false. Even if they try to go under, you know, negligently that Karen Reed and Aiden Carney negligent believe negligently believe them to be false. I actually think if they have proof of text messages to just go the full board that they knew this was false because Karen Reed said it was false or, you know, she admitted that she did it. I get why they're going under that theory. I just think it's a weak legal theory. Um, but let me know what you guys think. I mean, this is dangerous. I would not want to be involved in this at all. I would not want to be connected to this at all. Um, if I was Aiden Carney, if I was Karen Reed, this is not going to be fun to go through. This is going to be brutal.
It's going to be difficult. They have your cell phones. They're going to be able to twist and and use every text message, email, phone call that you had and really make it look bad. Um, but at the end of the day, I do think that the case is going to turn on what can you prove is true and what can you prove is false. All right, that's all we got.
Till next time, I am Oh, I'm not out of here. Almost got you. But Ashley sent me the statement by Karen Reed's team.
Here's a statement. And if this is wrong, it's on Ashley. All right. Karen Reed was wrongfully accused of and twice tried for a murder she did not commit.
She was ultimately acquitted of all charges related to the death of John O'Keefe by a jury of her peers. She is now seeking justice justice for Mr. O'Keefe and herself. This latest lawsuit is not about truth. It's about retaliation. After years of scrutiny, cross-examination, sworn testimony, and the introduction of extensive evidence related to them in open court, these plaintiffs are now trying to rewrite the narrative through a civil complaint filled with accusations that are unproven, conclusions that are unsupported, and allegations that lack any factual basis. In other words, it's desperation on a page. The filing reads less like a legal claim and more like a system systemic, sorry, systematic campaign of misinformation and falsehoods. We look forward to addressing it fully in court pursuant to the rules of evidence with the plaintiffs under oath. Statement from Karen Reed's defense team regarding the lawsuit filed against her in the Barnstable Superior Court. Um, both sides are going to say, "You're both lying. It's falsehoods. You're making crap up. You're going on a campaign of falsities."
When both people do that, sometimes nobody's ever able to win a civil lawsuit. And since we're looking at this civil lawsuit today, that is the difficulty they are also going to face.
Now, we really are done. So until next time, peace. Thanks for watching another episode of The Lawyer You Know. If you enjoyed the episode, please hit the thumbs up and share with your friends who may be interested here on YouTube.
And don't forget to subscribe. You can also follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, and Tik Tok. And don't forget to check out the Lawyer You Know podcast featuring new episodes every week. And if you have a case that you want to personally talk to us about in your life, if it's a personal injury case, wrongful death, catastrophic injury, car accident, truck accident, or slip and fall case, please email us at lawyer youngmail.com.
And of course, all these links I just mentioned are included in the description below on this episode and every episode. So until next time, this is Peter Traos, the lawyer, you know.
Ähnliche Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
