Hidden True Crime - Lori Wants to FIRE the Judge—Because of His Vibe

Episode Date: May 30, 2025

In a last ditch effort to get rid of Judge Beresky, Lori files a motion to disqualify him... RACC Belt Episode: Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/sheriff-strikes-back-lori-vallow-daybells-stun-belt/id1521619380?i=1000709102949 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5vhYtAZdQTDdxbnMwxx4mD?si=ogLqk0x2TkOIPfBY48OhhA About Hidden True Crime: What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at ⁠Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello. Lately, I've been trying to be more intentional about what I wear, intentional about everything, just choosing pieces that feel effortless, still put together, timeless, but also not overthinking it every morning. It's why I keep going back to quince. Their pieces just make getting dressed easier and I feel so classy. I feel elevated. The fits are flattering. The fabric is really high quality. Everything is wearable day to day. I actually. I actually, actually got this really beautiful yellow V-neck midi dress from them, and I paired it with some Italian leather sandals. It's one of those outfits that just works. It feels polished, but still comfortable. It's exactly what I've been looking for. What surprises me, though, is the quality

for the price. Quince uses premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. refresh your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, q-u-in-c-e dot com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Zootopia 2 has come home to Disney Plus. Let's go. Get ready for a new case. We're going to crack this case and prove.

the greatest partners of all time. New friends. You are Gary Desnake. And your last name? The Snake. Dream team. Hindu habitats. Zootopia has a secret reptile population.

You can watch the record-breaking phenomenon at home. You're clearly working at. Zootopia 2. Now available on Disney Plus rated PG. Hello, hello, hidden gems. I just came out of packing to go to Arizona. I'm on my way to Phoenix because jury selection starts tomorrow for Lori Valo-Dabelle's third trial. This time we are hoping for justice for Brandon Boudreau.

And his whole family, Brandon, survived. Lori is charged with conspiracy to kill Brandon Boudreau and he survived. But as I was packing, because again, jury selection. starts tomorrow. Lori Valadebel has officially made one last dramatic curtain call before the legal show begins. And I mean that. It is dramatic. He has filed a motion to boot Judge Boreski off the case for alleged personal bias. We've heard that before because, so because of course she did. And hidden true crime has the motion in hand and it's part legalese, part laurelies, and is fully committed to the chaos.

It's dated May 20th, notarized on May 22nd, and filed on the 25th. And it's just come down the docket in the last hour. It's Lori's latest move, reads, I would say, less like a legal argument and more like a cliffhanger.

And yes, for those wondering, the stun belt she has been ordered to wear is still in the picture. Admittedly, the motion to me reads like a mix between a, courtroom thriller, a very confusing courtroom thriller, and a very intense Yelp review. Lori accuses Judge Justin Breske of being so biased, he might as well have joined the prosecution.

She says he's rolled his eyes allegedly, made snarky comments about her past lawyers, denied her motions without explanation, and just generally acted like someone who isn't on Team Lori. She then launches into a full-speed collision with the Speedy Trial Act, arguing, that the judge blew past deadlines used bad faith delays and turned what should have been a brisk legal sprint into a never-ending procedural marathon. It's very Lori-ish fashion. So according to Lori,

Breskes' calendar crimes are grounds for dismissing the entire upcoming case against Branding Boudreau. So let's just go through this motion together and unpack it together. I've stopped packing so we can unpack this together. because pretty much we are all in this together for the next few weeks. So here we go. The motion starts by reading, quote,

I, Lori Daybell, being first duly sworn, say Mrs. Daybell, has made multiple motions for Judge Justin Breske to recuse himself from her cases. It's confusing, right? She's saying, I, Lori, Daybell, and then also refers to herself as her. So stick with me here. Ms. Dable has made multiple motions for Judge Justin Boreske to recuse himself from her cases. He has refused to recuse knowingly and willingly violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, canon one, two, manifesting bias, prejudice, and cannot be impartial in the defendant's cases.

On May 14, 2025, the defendant's cases are in the worldwide media networks. Judge Boreski refused to recuse himself in direct questioning by the court. defendant. The judge proceeded to breach his duties of the codes of judicial conduct, canon one, two, and further, by further commenting with opinions of the defendant's prior two groups of counsel, the defendant's advisory counsel, and the defendant's motions that he has denied without cause or decision to support his denial of requests. A judge should have recused himself related to the merits of their own ruling, end quote. Yes. The thick with me here. It continues on saying, quote, in regard to the complaint of judicial misconduct,

a judge commits error of laws in the process of reaching discretionary conclusions is abuse of discretion. On the May 14th, 2025 court proceeding, I was there for that day, Judge Verreskes' behavior and judicial acts fall within the scope of, quote, bad faith. The acts were intentionally committed and the judge knew or should have known that his actions were beyond a judge's lawful power of judge, but for corrupt purpose, which includes any other than faithful discharge of judicial duty regarding Rita Jett v. Arizona 1994. So she's just called Judge Breske corrupt. That's going to land well with him, I'm sure. Let's keep reading. The motions that the defense The defendant's prior to legal counsel teams, the defendant and her current advisory council

have advised for the defendant to file for evidence and further motions of requests are crucial to the defense preparation, witnesses, experts, evidence, proof of innocence, cross-examination, rebuttals, and foundation to all to the defense, all which Judge Boreski has deprived the defendant of access to the evidence. A judge abuses his discretion in controlling discovery. Judge Boreski crossed the line of neutrality when he misemployed his powers, when he assumed rule using his judicial powers to advantage or disadvantage a party unfairly. By the way, if this is confusing, you're not alone. Again, it's part legalese, but part laurelies too. The sentences are confusing. Let's keep going. The judge has misemployed his

powers when he assumed a role using his judicial powers to advantage or disadvantage a party unfairly, thus giving an impression that this court has opinion and proper judicial intervention results in prejudice. The facial expressions, she brings up, attitude, demeanor, and statement deprived the defendant of a fair and impartial hearing, ER 8 for violation. In conduct, that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, a request for presiding disciplinary judge is being made on Judge Justin Boreski. Also on May 14th, Lori continues, Judge Breske refused to apply or understand the direct guidelines of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's own attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Civil Attorney Joseph Vigil. On March 20th, 2025,

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's response to remove restraints, aka Stunbelt, during trial on page three with, quote, without any restraints in the courtroom, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office would recommend an unarmed detention officer and an armed sheriff's deputy in the courtroom. The belt is visible on the defendant and has fallen off the defendant in prior trial proceedings. The motion was denied by Judge Beraski.

So here we go again. We did a whole video on the stun belt. We'll have that linked in the description of this episode. But Lori Vallow Daybell will not give up her desire to not wear this stun belt. And it's like kind of this mind-blowing moment to me that here we are. Again, it's like Groundhogs Day. So let's keep going. Under the Sixth Amendment, jurors' glimpses of defendant in restraints can

rise to a level of due process violations. A person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right within the meaning of Section 42, USCA, if he, she, does an affirmative act, participate in another affirmative act or omits the to perform act, which he or she is legally required that causes deprivation. Anyone causing any citizen to be subjected to a constitutional deprivation is also liable. The requisite, casual, connection can be established by a series of acts by which the actor inflicted the constitutional injuries and abuse of discretion. Judge Borewski's denial of both Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Maricopa County Attorney, Civil Attorney Mr. Vigil's recommendations, and the defendant's

motion for removal of restraint bout. Okay. So again, Lori is bringing up the bout. She claims that if the jurors see it, then it could put. possibly be a problem. I did interview many jurors, one of them. I was directly asked about the stun belt. He says that she didn't see it, nor did anybody else. They had no idea. I also want to point out that she is claiming that the sheriff's office has absolutely said she doesn't have to wear it. Well, again, I reported last week that actually the sheriff's office came back and it wasn't just Judge Burekinawere now saying that she needs to wear the stun belt. The sheriff's office came back and said she needs to wear it. They do not have enough armed guards for the courtroom.

They're low staffed with armed guards, unfortunately. A little nerve-wracking. But she has to wear it. The sheriff's office has made that clear as well. And you think that between the judge Boreski and also the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office responding with this absolute you need to wear it, she would give up. But Lori does not give up. Again, And we'll have the whole stun belt outline in the description of this episode, in the pinned comment. So kind of mind-blowing. Here we, it's like, you know, Groundhogs Day in May. The defendant is, she continues.

So the defendant, quote, the defendant is pro per filed May 10th, 2025 and denied by Judge Breske. On May 14th, bringing up May 14th again, 2025. Judge Boreske denied defendant's motion to dismiss for abuse of discretion by Judge Justin Breske filed on April 26, 2025 for violation of Speedy Trial Act. Under 18 U.S.CA. 3161B1 resulted in miscarriage of justice failure to make prescribed findings to justify ends of justice continuance. Cannot be excused as harmless error under the speedy trial act. A, I'm going to say an N, A. N. An end of justice must be filed, therefore, violation of rule 15.7, due process. 3161. The Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial, Congress enacted the speedy trial act, which criminal trials must commence. Under 18 U.S.CA, 3161, the speedy trial act, and case law are silent as to what a non-statutory factor district court should generally consider.

A court abuses its discretion. when it fails to consider all factors relevant to the choice and the factors it did rely on were unsupported by facts under 16 ARS rules 8.6 denial of speedy trial if the rules have been violated. The court must dismiss the prosecution with or without prejudice. Violating the speedy trial rule does violate spirit of rule and the fact the defendant is deprived of due process.

So again, she's bringing up another old argument, the speedy trial act that she claims that she is not had. Although Judge Boreski has offered her multiple times or in a continuance, she has said, no, I want to go forward, full force, straight ahead. And Judge Breske has shown her over and over again. We have not violated your speedy trial rights. She is claiming once again that he has. Before I switched to Wealthfront, my APY was probably 0.1. Like, it was a joke. I was literally getting pennies. Once I switched, chiching. With a Wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. The high APY with Wellfront was a clear winner. There are no petty fees.

Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest in. I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own, and I can trust Welfront is taking care of me. earn more on your uninvested cash with a wealthfront cash account no account fees no minimums and no strings attached get started today at wealthfront.com clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials creating a conflict of interest outcomes vary 3.3% base API why as of January 30th 2026 is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC not a bank. eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account. Let's be honest. Buying cannabis shouldn't be complicated, sketchy, or low quality.

That's why I want to tell you about mood.com. That's M-O-O-O-D.com. Mood ships federally legal cannabis straight to your door. No medical card, no hassle. And here's the kicker. The quality is better than anything you'll find at your local dispensary. Yeah, I said it. Whether you're into edibles, concentrates, flour, or just looking to explore,

You'll find it all at mood. And it's not just the variety that makes them stand out. Every product is sourced from small American-owned family farms that care deeply about what they grow. It's cannabis you can trust, delivered discreetly, and ready to elevate your mood. And because you're a listener, you get 20% off your first order. Just head to mood.com. That's M-O-O-O-D-com to get started. The state and Judge Voreski failed with End of Justice for Continuance.

Judge Verusky, therefore, violated the speedy trial act with failure to justify a continuance. May 11th, 2025 was the speedy trial act limit of timeline for trial. Judge Verreske violated 16 ARS rules of criminal prosecution rule 8.2, 8.6. This was motivated by bad faith. The speedy trial clock has exceeded the maximum days. The act is violated. Thus, the case should be dismissed. dismissal without prejudice is not a toothless sanction for a speedy trial act violation in U.S.

versus Spaniard, the court failed to request findings to justify ends of justice continuance, thus violating speedy trial act. Warranting dismissal based on court violations, the speedy trial act impasses strict specificity requirements for end of justice. The district court fails to comply with them. No continuance period may be excluded from speedy trial computation. A continuance period is not excludable from speedy trial calculations. The trial court's failure to set forth in the record its reasons for findings by granting a continuance violates 18 U.S.CA-31.

The indictment time period violates the speedy trial act. The defendant's conviction would be reversed and the cause of, overmanded for dismissal of indictment. Guys, I don't know what it is about Lori Daybell and punctuation, but I'm struggling. Thanks for being here for this. On April 9th, 2025, Judge Boreski in trial, which media networks aired, his comment against the defendant violating 42 USC, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Oh, here we are.

Okay. once again, we're back to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. That once again, Judge Breske has already ruled on saying that her religious freedom, her religious freedom was not infringed upon. But Lori is going to keep going. So let's jump into this now. Judge Justin Breske stated, quote, I guess to the extent that you are comparing yourself to these biblical figures,

I will allow it. end quote. This was a malicious act by Judge Breske to the defendant manifesting discrimination and religious prosecution. Note, I think she meant persecution, religious persecution, but religious prosecution, against Mrs. Daybell's religious exercise beliefs and practices under USCA Constitution amended first and fifth due process. The comments compound the prejudice of an erroneous misunderstanding for the purpose

of fundamental error. The defendant only needs to establish one prong to prove fundamental error. A judge who engages in improper behavior while on the bench is sanctions imposed unprofessional conduct, and it violates ARS rules 41 duties and obligations of members. Under this rule, disqualification grounds a judge must recuse himself from any proceeding while a judge expressed an opinion concerning merits of the proceeding or in which the judge has a personal bias against a party regarding case law, a judge violates due process by not recusing under 14th Amendment. With judicial decree does not justify public comment by a judge related to matter, which is outside context of official proceeding.

Another sentence that didn't make sense, and it's not a lack of understanding legalese. but we'll keep going. She cites case law. Canon 1, 2 and 3. The judge's public comment risk of appearing the judge impartiality and objectivity is compromised in violation of canon 1, 2, 3, the comment is order for dismissal. Number 1. I am the defendant in the above entitled case. Number 2. I am informed and believe and based on that information and belief allege that the honorable, I should call them honorable, the honorable judge Justin Boreski, the judge before whom this cause is pending, has personal bias against the defendant, Lori and Daibel, in favor of the state. A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding

and brings the judiciary into disrepute. Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1, 2, and 3. Facial expressions. Here we go. facial expressions, attitude, demeanor, and statements deprive the defendant of a fair and impartial hearing, misconduct, bias, or prejudice of judge. So remember how we all said that Judge Boreski, I'm taking a pause from reading this, Laura Lee's for a second. Remember how we've all said that Judge Boreski is literally the most like gray rocking judge of all gray rocking judges we've seen, meaning he, he, does a very good job not wearing his emotion on his face, but not according to Lori.

So it's just surprising. And this is new. Here we go. She does a lot of old arguments. This is a new one. It is the judge's vibe that shows he is biased. A judge shall not preside once affidavit is filed. And the facts and the reasons for the belief that such bias or prejudice exists,

our statement of facts above. End quote. We did it, guys. We got through that really messy motion by Lori Vallow DeBal. So let's just unpack this together. I'm no lawyer, nor can I always understand Lori's punctuation or sentence structure. But here's what I got out of what we just read. So according to Lori, May 14th, 2025, was her personal judgment day.

The judge refused to recuse himself, refused to ditch the stun belt on that day, which Lori notes has fallen off mid-trial awkwardly. Although the judge says it's not what happened. It was starting to slip, and they took her out the back room and fixed it. But Lori notes that it also, the stunbelt ignored recommendations, the judge ignored recommendations from the sheriff's office and its lawyer about the courtroom restraints about the stun belt. But again, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has issued a statement and they've made it very clear they recommend a stunbelt. And Lori says this whole setup violates her Sixth Amendment rights and probably her fashion sense.

Let's be honest. She then launches into a full-speed collision with the speedy trial act, arguing that the judge blew past deadlines, used bad faith delays, and turned what should have been a brisk legal sprint into a never-ending procedural marathon, which, again, talk about projection. I would say that Lori is the one that has turned this into never-ending procedural marathon. But according to Lori, Breskes' calendar cross. are grounds for dismissing the entire case. And it doesn't stop there. She also says,

and this is my favorite part, she also says that the judge's face, yes, his facial expressions, voila, they are what have lent to her right. They are what have made it so she did not have a fair trial, the judge's vibe. As did the comment he made about comparing her yourself to biblical figures, which actually Judge Breskes says he shouldn't have said that. He said, I should not have said that. But despite the fact that I should not have said that comment, this was the context for the comment I made. And Lori, you had a fair trial. But Lori is having none of that. Lori is still calling that religious persecution, prosecution, but persecution will say, citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and claiming that her

First and Fifth Amendment rights are crumbling to the ground. So that's, this is what I'm gathering. In short, Lori's motion argues that Judge Boreski is biased. He's misused his powers. He's ignored her rights. He wears his bias on his face. And he needs to be disqualified immediately, preferably before he can sentence her, because of course that would be convenient. It is dramatic. and it might just be the most Lori move yet, calling the judge corrupt. And I dare say, could this be a foreshadowing of what's to come in this upcoming trial? Is this Lori we're seeing, who's a lot feister, who's not giving up, who's demanding the judge be recused, who's calling the judge corrupt when he's about to be with her at this next third trial,

I wonder if it is because she lost. She was fairly well behaved during her murder trial for Charles Vallow. I mean, we saw Lori's Lori. So that's all relative. I'm not saying that Lori wasn't Lori during that trial. We saw Lori unhinged at times during that trial. But for the most part, I think our expectations or the expectation of what I had versus how she carried herself in that trial.

you know, she, she did a decent job keeping that facade or that mask on as well as the stun belt. She kept that on too. I feel like this might be a foreshadowing of what's to come. She is angry that she lost. She told us in her interview with Brianna. Remember Brianna who interviewed Lori after her last trial in Arizona that she thought she was going to win. She was shocked when the verdict came back that she was guilty. I think she's angry.

I think the gloves are coming off. And what I mean by that is her mask is coming off. This is who Lori is. We're seeing the real Lori, which is why I call this the most Lori move yet. I think it is a foreshadowing of what we might see at this next trial. I am off to go pack. I have a long drive to Arizona.

So hit subscribe, hit notifications, because I honestly think that the next few weeks are going to be a ride we won't forget. So let's buckle up. And thank you to those who are also our Patreon subscribers. Dr. John Matthias, my co-host, will be on there weekly during this trial as well, giving his thoughts. And I think we'll start with this emotion. Thanks, everyone.

We'll see you. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wallfronts. Cheching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest, and I didn't have to do anything. Clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the Wealthfront Cash account. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base APII as of January 30th, 2026, as representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000.

Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank.