Murdaugh Murders Podcast - TSP #154 — Weldon Boyd’s Bizarre (And, Frankly, Embarrassing) Legal Filings Against Mark Tinsley Get the Full Tiger Treatment

Episode Date: June 25, 2026

Investigative journalists Mandy Matney and ⁠Liz Farrell⁠ dig into the spectacular self-destruction of Weldon Boyd's case against attorney Mark "the Tiger" Tinsley—the wannabe blueberry farmer who sued the lawyer representing the family of the man he killed. Spoiler: Judge Hyman tossed it. We walk through the June 10 hearing, Desa Ballard's baffling "declaratory judgment" demand, and the question nobody could answer: what exactly are we trying to remedy here?Then there's Ken Moss's bizarre motion to recuse Judge Eugene Bubba Griffith, built on a mysterious affidavit he refuses to produce—and a subpoena aimed straight at LUNASHARK®...?Plus: Mandy reports back from her Spartanburg contempt hearing, where Greg Parker's attorneys want her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars - we think - to a gas-station billionaire. We're broadcasting all four hours Thursday, June 25th at noon on Facebook - watch it with us or catch the replay only on LUNASHARK® Premium afterward.Let's Dive In… 🥽 🦈 Lawyers & judges: email your insights to [e-mail] Join the LUNASHARK Premium Community - Together we go further ☀️ Fresh LUNASHARK Merch designs and styles 👚 Episode Links Sweet treats for Luna and Joe Pesky 🦴  “Sunlight on Scott Spivey” Spotify Playlist 🎧 Rewatch Boyd & Williams’ Stand Your Ground Hearing - Feb 17-20, 2026 🎞️ Crowd the Courthouse 3.0 - Support the Beach Family ⚖️ Previous Episodes: TSP 151 [Part Two] & TSP 153 [Part One] 🎧 Stay Tuned, Stay Pesky and Stay in the Sunlight...☀️ *** ALERT: If you ever notice audio errors in the pod, email [e-mail] and we'll send fun merch to the first member that finds something that needs to be adjusted! ***   For current & accurate updates: TrueSunlight.com    |    facebook.com/TrueSunlightPodcast/ Instagram.com/TrueSunlightPod  |   youtube.com/@LunaSharkMedia     |   tiktok.com/@lunasharkmedia Threads.com/@mandy_matney   |   Threads.com/@elizfarrell Instagram.com/mandy_matney   |   Instagram.com/elizfarrell Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thank you so much for supporting our mission to give voice to victims by watching Hulu's Murdoch death in the family. We have been hard at work for weeks curating Soak Up the Sun premium content to go with each of the eight episodes. We are so excited to share the behind-the-scenes photos from the show, maps, more audio, timelines, case files, and the original source material that inspired the writers and directors for Hulu's original series. All for our Soak Up the Sun members on Luna Shark Premium. Use your Supercast login to get access to the full experience. That means ad-free, plus extended episodes, bonus drops, exclusive case files, live streams, access to our exclusive members-only shows like Girl Talk, Corruption Watch List,

premium dives, and more. Plus, curated behind-the-scenes coverage of the Hulu series. Join our mission and become a member today at LunaShark.supercast or click the link in the description. I don't know what Weldon Boyd is thinking, but suing Mark Tensley and accusing him of criminal activity with a judge is not a good idea. I think things are about to get real interesting for Old Weldon, and I can't wait. My name is Manny Matney. This is True Sunlight, a podcast exposing crime and corruption, previously known as the Murdoch Marders podcast. True Sunlight is a Luna Shark production, written with journalist Liz

Farrell. Hey y'all, I have so much to talk about today, so let's get right into it. First of all, this is the only episode of True Sunlight this week as Greg Parker's attorneys forced us to take Monday and half of Tuesday off of work to make the eight-hour round-trip drive to and from Spartanburg, so that I could defend myself against their absurd and In my opinion, unnecessary contempt of court motion. I know most of y'all know the deal here, but to sum it up, Greg Parker's attorneys want me to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees because they refuse to respect my right as a third-party witness

to be deposed in a place where I felt safe. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, we think. They want us to pay to a gas station billionaire for his lawyers who spent the last several months harassing, defaming and demeaning me through the legal system that I pay for with my hard-earned tax dollars. I know some of y'all are dying to know what happened in court on Monday, since we weren't able to broadcast the airing live and because we want as many people as humanly possible to be aware of, what Greg Parker's attorneys are really doing in this case, we are going to do something special on Thursday. We are going to broadcast all four hours of my civil contempt hearing on True Sunlight's Facebook page at noon, Thursday, June 25th. Right now, we are waiting for Judge

R. Keith Kelly to make his decision, which is expected in the next few weeks. Spoiler alert, he asked for proposed orders from both sides, so we'll see what happens. There is a glimmer of hope. Some of us will be joining to comment along with y'all as the hearing plays out on Facebook Thursday, and I cannot wait for y'all to see what really went down. I just want to say that I am so proud of my attorneys Meredith Bannon and Becky Lindahl for how strong of a case we made on Monday. I am so proud of my husband David Moses and our friend and Cup of Justice co-host, Eric Bland,

for testifying fiercely and firmly on my behalf. Finally, and maybe most importantly, I have to say thank you to every single person who showed up in Spartanburg in pink to support me on Monday. We filled another courtroom and painted it pink again, completely changing the vibe of that hearing. Greg Parker's attorneys tried to claim that Spartanburg was their best venue for a fair jury, and y'all showed them that the further they push to try to punish me, the more they are tainting their own jury pool and tanking their own client's reputation. No one can be blamed for that other than those attorneys. I feel like Deborah B. Barbier, Mark Moore, and Jim Bannister,

were totally shook up by the Sea of Pink, that showed up against them on Monday. And y'all, that is a big deal. We will unpack all of what went down in the hearing on Facebook Thursday and in future episodes of True Sunlight Podcast. We definitely did not want to cover this case this much. But it seems like sunlight is the only way out of this. So many of you all have asked us how to help us during this incredibly stressful

and unpredictable time in our lives. Right now, we need you in two ways. One, make noise about this case loudly on TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, threads everywhere, loudly. Tag Parker's on Facebook and Parker's Kitchen on Instagram. Tag Jim Bannister's law firm in his Greenville County Water District account, as he's apparently the commissioner of that. Tag Deborah Barbier's Instagram.

You need you to join us in sending a loud and clear message that Greg Parker's attorneys have made a huge mistake in their months-long endeavor to hold me in contempt, and it is not too late to do the right thing and withdraw their contempt motion. And to be clear, please do not harass or threaten anyone. We are the good guys in this. Stick to the truth and stick to what you believe. We believe that this contempt motion is wrong. and that it's not too late to do the right thing and withdraw it.

The second way to help is to join Lunashark Premium. As you all know, litigation is expensive and this legal nightmare has been incredibly taxing. This week, for example, we weren't able to release a Cup of Justice episode because of this hearing. We weren't able to release a part two of True Sunlight because of this hearing,

and we barely were able to get this episode out on time because of this hearing. So every single person signing up for Luna Shark Premium will help support us to continue pursuing our mission of exposing the truth wherever it leads, giving a voice to victims and getting the story straight during this incredibly difficult time. Plus, we will be broadcasting Ehrlich Murdoch's hearing next week on Premium, and you won't want to miss that. Greg Parker's attorneys have accused me of purposely disobeying a court order so that I will be. I can get clicks and attention on social media. That's insane, I know. But they want me to feel like every single time I post on social media,

it is bad for my contempt case. They want me to be scared to say Greg Parker's name on my podcast and fear that it will be used against me in court. They want me to be quiet. They want me to be afraid. And they want me to lose my business in the process of fighting them. I can tell you all, They won't ever get what they want out of this case.

And you can help us build a castle out of all the bricks Greg Parker's team has thrown at me. Continuing to shine sunlight on this dark and depraved justice system of ours has never been more important. Tell your friends, spread the word and spread the sunlight. Have y'all ever seen a wannabe blueberry farmer who trailers couches? and has a self-designated stateside notch for killing, for needlessly and impulsively killing, in our opinions, a 33-year-old man who was simply headed home one September evening, mainly because of the wannabe farmer's apparent good guy with a gun fantasies and his utter inability to control his emotions in a breakup get mauled by a tiger.

We have, and we need to tell you about it. Turns out karma has stripes. So, you know Weldon Boy, the middle-aged so-called boy, who has nearly 20 years of experience of being a man, whose mind, the now former Ory County Deputy Police Chief, Brandon Strickland, was, quote, trying to ease after the shooting by saying he was, quote, working in the shadows to help make sure Weldon's co-killing of Scott Spivey went in Weldon's favor.

If you don't know what I'm referencing their backup and listen to True Sunlight 153 because, yikes. Oh, and you also know Mark Tinsley, right? The plaintiff's attorney who represents the Spivey family in a wrongful death case against Weldon and his co-shooter Bradley Williams, Mark Tinsley. The attorney whose very name lately seems to cause a defendants, their counsel, and their deceptive and bumbling media allies to lose their bearings on earth and start malfunctioning in ways that can only be described as bizarre, self-destructive, doot-durific, if I'm being really honest. And beep-bop-boop, screws falling from their smoking brains and bewildered eyeballs

hanging out of their sockets by loose and bouncy springs, looney tunes. I'm not kidding about that. There needs to be a study on this at the University of South Carolina Law School, by the way. Why do Mark Tinsley's opponent's short circuit in these? the most consequential, reckless, and dismantled of ways. I mean, the answer is pretty obvious. He's not afraid of bullies, and he doesn't keep secrets for lying fools. Bullies and fools tend not to like that.

Bullies and fools also don't like that we cover his cases. So by extension, they disparage us, come up with dishonest narratives, depose us, and make sexist remarks about why two investigative journalists who cover a crime and corruption might be interested in cases about crime and corruption. They act like we've been doing play-by-plays of his product liability in automobile wreck cases. I mean, come on now. Get a grip, you weirdos. But back to the part where Mark's opponents malfunction. Remember in episode 151, we told you about the strange, outlandish and downright fishy lawsuit. A lawsuit, complaint, filing. It's really hard to know what to call it. That was,

Brotigans marked this past November by V1 and only Weldon Boyd. On June 10th, they had their first hearing on the matter. Oh, and also their last one, ostensibly. It's hard to know what the upper limit is for beep-bop-booping, screws falling out of heads there in this case. So, I'll leave open the possibility of this case getting sent to the United States Supreme Court for consideration. Anyway, we haven't had a chance to talk to y'all about what went down at the hearing,

and since then, the judge has ruled. So perfect timing to get caught up today. This hearing was the first time we got to meet Weldon's attorney in the case. Not Ken Moss, a.k.a. Kinn. But Dessa Ballard, who accused Mark Tunesley on her client's behalf, obviously, of lying about Weldon to become a celebrity. Because she argues that's what Mark is doing in the Spivey case. Sure, he caught widespread national attention for his with receipts,

highly tick-talkable testimony in the Murdoch case, where he caused Dick Harputtlian's associate Phil Barber to turn from a man with a regular face to a man whose face resembled a plastic cup getting rapidly filled to the brim with Franzia chillable red. I am not knocking that, by the way. Drink your Franzias. It is still okay. And sure, Scott Spivey's sister, Jennifer Spivey Foley, contacted Mark to represent her family after that widespread recognition from the Murdoch case. When Judge Clifton Newman christened Mark, Mark the Tiger Tinsley, and when a listener of this show, nickname Mark, brilliantly, Mark Zero Dark Tinsley. But Dessa Ballard, on behalf of Weldon, maintains that Mark Zero Dark Tiger took the Spivey case

to fulfill his dreams of becoming a star, and in pursuing this goal of having his name, in bright lights, Mark has victimized Weldon, depriving him of his right to have a fair trial, in a case that Dessa says we're not allowed to mention because she didn't explicitly mention it in her complaint. Stick a pin in that one. In Weldon's November 3, 2025 complaint, or, I guess more accurately, motion for declaratory judgment, whatever it's called, Dessa took the literary liberty of titling it, Tinsley did not let the truth get in the way of a good story. And she even footnoted what a celebrity is so that the court would immediately recognize that Mark Tinsley is definitely and obviously guilty of wanting to be one. David, I know that you've read

this for all of us before, but can we hear it again? Footnote one. The Oxford English Dictionary defines celebrity as, quote, the state or fact of being well known, widely discussed, or publicly esteemed. Personal fame or renown as manifested in and determined by public interest and media attention, end quote, from the 2016 edition. See also how to become a celebrity on the Girl Survival Guide on on Reddit. See also how to become famous in nine celebrities certified steps on backstage.com. Okay, I should add my own little footnote here. This complaint of Weldon's wanting the court to issue a declaratory judgment, which, according to the Girl's Survival Guide and How to Become Famous and Nine Celebrity Certified Steps,

is the, quote, legal determination of the court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legal binding preventative by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask the court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more of the parties in a civil dispute subject to any appeal, end quote. And just kidding, that was Wikipedia. Essentially, Weldon wanted the court to put it in writing that Mark Tensley is a limelight chasing liar. Remember when Mark said this about himself?

Han said that, you know, he's going to put a statement together. He said, you know, you're not a celebrity, but you kind of are, and it's going to get around. Again, just kidding. That was Weldon, humble bragging on himself. At 1025 the morning after he killed a 33-year-old man after chasing him for miles. Okay, on June 10th, and with Judge B. Alex Hyman presiding in Ory County Court, Dessa made an appearance for Weldon and John T. Lay made an appearance for Mark Tensley. You might remember John T's name.

He was a receiver assigned in the Mallory Beach boat crash case after the Murdox were accused of liquidating Ehrlich's assets, while Ehrlich was in jail and therefore depriving Elex victims of future financial settlement. He helped locate and total up Ehrlich's assets. And back to the Dessa Weldon Show. There were a few motions on the docket. Two were from Mark, a motion to dismiss, and a motion to quash, and for protective order from discovery. For some reason, Dessa was seeking alleged communications between Mark and Netflix,

which, and I question myself for offering this free advice to Dessa, isn't generally how it works. Girl, production companies produce documentaries and shop them around to streaming services. It is not like Netflix is emailing lawyers trying to get them scheduled for camera time. Dessa also asked for a long and very comical list of records to produce from September 9, 2023, through the present date. On Weldon's behalf, Dessa has filed two motions to compel discovery and a motion to strike marks inclusion of Judge Eugene Bubba Griffith's order, denying Weldon's stand-your-ground immunity

with his motion to dismiss. The latter motion was a point of contention for Miss Ballard, but we will get there. The hearing started with John T. Lay's arguments in favor of dismissing the case, and with that, the drama started. The key dispute was this. Dessa's motion for discovery judgment calls Mark a liar, and that he lied about the facts of the Spivey case to fulfill his need to be famous.

To make that argument that Mark did this, Dessa outlined the core quote-unquote facts of the Spivey case. Except they weren't facts. They were since disputed components of Weldon's well-publicized, off-publicized, narrative that started the night of September 9, 2023, meaning it was a compilation of things like this. David? Scott Spivey engaged in a road rage incident that he single-handedly initiated, whereby he stalked and assaulted Boyd and others on the public highways of Ory County, South Carolina. After some time of threatening and assaulting multiple victims, Spivey began to focus his rage exclusively on Boyd and his passenger. Spivey followed Boyd's vehicle for miles, then suddenly pulled in front of Boyd's vehicle and ran Boyd's vehicle off the road into the median. Several eyewitnesses were consistent in their descriptions

to law enforcement of Spivey firing his weapon toward Boyd's vehicle. Boyd's 911 tape provides a real-time narration of Boyd and his passengers' efforts to retreat with Boyd unsecreted. successfully attempting repeatedly to put his vehicle in reverse to escape Spivey, who was in front of his vehicle. If you've listened to our episodes where we break down Weldon's 911 call and compare it to the evidence and witness statements, along with our coverage of the stand-your-ground hearing this past February, then you know that those statements in Dessless Filing have been stripped of their context and the facts.

Judge Griffith's order out. outlines what really happened on September 9th, 2023, and it concludes that Weldon's version of events is a dishonest one in consideration of the evidence. So the problem is this. DeSah wants the court to acknowledge that Mark, in the filing's words, in order to further increase his public profile and in further acts of self-enggrandizement and self-promotion, set about to further his celebrity and to creating knowingly false yet sensational narrative, which was perpetuated by obtaining non-public material and publicly releasing selective portions to media outlets for widespread distribution. She wants the court to acknowledge that, again, in the filing's words,

Tinsley has perverted the course of justice which has caused harm to Boyd. I'm going to oversimplify all of this a little bit, but the point should be clear. John T. made a few arguments under Rule 12 of the roles of civil procedure. One was that Weldon failed to state a cause of action, and the other was that there's another action pending between the same parties for the same claim. Those are grounds he can use to get the case dismissed. In order to make that argument, though, logic would dictate that you would need to acknowledge that there's a pending wrongful death case against Weldon, and that Mark's comments to the media represented the truth. But again, Dessa wanted to be slick, and try to make this happen without acknowledging the other case at all and without having Weldon's lies challenged.

Her argument relies on the rule that judges must, quote, presume all well-pled facts to be true in a case when considering whether to dismiss that case. And I'm sorry, but let's put a little emphasis on the well-plaid facts part of that. Okay? I'm telling you this so you understand what's happening in this first part of the hearing. So let's have a listen. and yes, John T. Mish names Judge Griffith as Griffin.

It happens. It's happened to me. And it promise you, Dessa does not let that go, but stick a pin in that too. As a result of that, he found that there was no immunity that was going to apply to Mr. Boy. And in fact, there were lots of other findings that came out of that from Judge Griffin. We have a very detailed order going through the different facts that he found that was basis of his ruling. Now I don't want to read it in its entire because it is long, but there are a couple of very important points that I want to go through both in the complaint that was filed

by Ms. Ballard on behalf of Mr. Boyd, but also the order itself so that you can see the contrast in the two. Your Honor, I'm a motion to strike after receiving Mr. Lays memorandum. He attached an order from another case, and we file a motion to strike immediately come receiving that. It sounds as if he's attempting to read from the order that we moved to strike. So we would object to any argument on that and tell her to strike this than her. Well, she can raise that, Your Honor, in response to my argument. I need to go through the definition. Well, let me do this.

Okay, y'all, so I really want you to get familiar. with Dessa's energy. John T. wasn't even a minute into his argument and literally says he's not going to read the Stand Your Grand Order into the record when Dessa was all like, nope, nope, nope, your honor! I have a motion on the table to make arguments against allowing this order to be attached to their arguments to dismiss. She just got right in there and honestly, I don't know how to read that.

Then, the judge allowed John T. to use the order to address specific claims made by Dessa in the motion for declaratory judgment. More on that and more on this hearing after a quick break, and we'll be right back. You know me, I dig until I find the truth, and it turns out that same instinct that drives my investigative journalism, it makes for a different but pretty amazing new kind of travel show. Wherever it leads is Luna Sharks' brand new podcast, and it's nothing like the travel content that you've heard before. We go deeper, we talk to locals, reporters, and people who actually live where you want to visit, not just the ones who want your tourist dollars. We cover the

food and landmarks, sure, but we also ask the harder questions. What is the real history here? The often sad and traumatic history. What new challenge is this place facing? And how can you show up as a visitor who actually makes things better? My co-host, David Moses and I, along with a team of journalists are hitting destinations around the world to expose the truth, give voice to victims throughout history, and get the story straight, with new destinations and episodes every other week, Wherever It Leads from Luna Shark. Find it wherever you listen to your podcast, or visit wherever it leads, pod.com. Okay, so back to the hearing. Mark Tensley's attorney, John T. Lay, was quick to correct Dess's mischaracterization of the spy-beam investigation. This

case was always about the disgusting amount of corruption in the Ory County Police Department that the public needs to know about. All of that evidence came out. There were problems with the evidence, and guess what, Mr. Tenzelese, the one, they dug it out and brought it out at this hearing where Judge Griffin went through all of it and made the findings that are completely contradictory to what's been pled in this complaint. Tensley is the source are all of the. part of the Oregon County Police Department file materials provided to the Wall Street Journal. So what if that's true? There's nothing confidential that has been revealed. They are suggesting and complaining that there was information that was not part of the public record that was provided

to media sources. So what if that's true? None of it's confidential. There was no court order that said that you this information couldn't be provided to a media source. And remember what Mr. Tensley's dealing with all of this is going on. We have an individual who manipulated an investigation of the police department. The police department, the Worcet County Police Department is releasing information that Spivey was the one that was responsible for it. And Mr. Tensley and all of that is in the medium and Mr. Spivey's dead. He can't respond to it and Mr. Tensley is going out and finding the evidence and revealing the other side. of the story, which has got this thing turned around for what, for justice to get to the truth.

That's what Mr. Tensley did. What they are suggesting here is that any communication, any communication to the media, and this has to be their basic premise, is somehow inappropriate and can lead to a lawsuit where a party who is being sued said, I'm going to go sue the lawyer on the other side because I don't like what they're doing. I don't like it. They're talking to the media, and that's inappropriate. The rules don't say that.

There's nothing unethical about talking to the media in a lawsuit. If the legislature wants to change the rules, wants to change the rules of evidence, our Supreme Court wants to do that. Fine, have that. That's not against the rules. I think it's so important to note here that the anti-Mandy and me and the trolls who seem to automatically trend pro-Tinsley opponent out there also have adopted this theory that any communication with the media by Mark is somehow wrong.

This isn't about just us, obviously, but also we know the hell we've been put through over the past few years for covering Mark's high-profile cases where news agencies like Fitznews, where we used to work, and the state also part of a company we used to work for, and people like former Fitznews reporter Callie Lyons, who briefly freelance for Luna Shark, the true crime felon, a website, the other Murdoch podcast hosts and their fans who are still fixated on us, continue to try to make it seem like there's something sinister going on between us and Mark simply because we are on the same side of history. But back to John T.

He's able to react to what he perceives for false stories on Facebook, the media, walking down the street and hearing somebody talk about it. He's allowed to do it. That's not actionable. That's what they're fleeting is actionable. He published on Facebook post that there was a step cart cartridge under Boyd's tire and that it likely fell out of Boyd's truck. Well, that's what was discussed in the four-day mini trial,

that the truck had been moved or that there were casings that came from cartridges that came from Mr. Boyd that showed he's the one that was shooting. first. That's what Mr. Griffin, what Judge Griffin found. There's nothing wrong with posting something like that. There's no witness saying Spivey exited the truck and discharged his weapon. Tensley made that statement. They're saying that it was wrong and it was false and he's manipulating the media. Well, guess what? That's what Judge Griffin found after the four-day trial. There's nothing wrong with that. This is what this lawsuit is about. It is about things that are completely contradicted by evidence by what judge Griffin found by four-day trial completely contradicted what

their position is you got to just take our word for it this is a motion to dismiss you ignore all the arguments they made all the findings that are dealing with the exact same issues they have pled in this complaint seven pages dealing with the road rage incident stating that mr spoddy caused all of it and they want you to say, I'm ignoring the wrongful death suit. I'm ignoring what Judge Griffin found, even though that's the basis of this entire lawsuit, that Martin'sley, for his own ego, for his own celebrity, is saying things that are different about how the road rage incident

occurred than what Mr. Lloyd is saying. And they had trial on that, many trial. That is not and can't be stated to be for Mr. Tinsley's ego and celebrity. He is representing this five family. From the moment Weldon killed Scott, Weldon was worried about the public narrative. So many of his phone calls are about that, about individuals spreading rumors about Scott being connected to Weldon's ex-fiance, which he wasn't, to our knowledge.

And people just, you know, saying things. Weldon had a two-year start on Jennifer Spivey Foley and pushing the narrative about Scott. Hell, Weldon and Ory County Police to this day referred to Scott as a drug user despite there being no steroids in his system at the time of his death. And as to his alcohol use, they never acknowledged that Scott purchased rounds for several people at the bar before hitting the road that evening. And he had even eaten a full meal, an appetizer and snacks,

at the bar for five hours before driving. He didn't just drink, get drunk, then drive. Oh, and look, Ory County Police only got surveillance video of Scott at the bar toward the inn. None of him walking out of the bar where he might appear to be sober enough to drive. And let's not forget that the police

purposely left Scott in a high. hot truck for hours after his death, allowing the alcohol in his system to concentrate and ferment in his bloodstream, meaning Weldon and the police did a fine and mighty job of managing and spreading the message that Scott Spivey was a crazed road rager who needed to be taken down, and Weldon Boyd was a hero for doing so. Mark Tensley not only had the right to correct that notion per the evidence, he had a duty to his client to do so. So back to the hearing. There's no case that I can find anywhere in the entire world that allows them to bring the suit that they're bringing here. That you can sue a lawyer because of contact, simply because of

contact with the media where he has a narrative that's different than the folks that he's engaged with litigation. What we have is different here, even with that, we have here's something different. We've got a case that was actually tried on the issues that they're pleading when there was a result that's opposite than what they pled. But there is no case that I can find anywhere that says she can, uh, that Mr. Boyd can bring a declaratory judgment action to say that Mr. Tensley, this is the what they're asking for, a finding that Mr. Tensley, uh, manipulated that evidence said, false things to the media, did things with the evidence that were untrue, promoted a false narrative that he knew to be false. And we want a declaration of that. We also want a finding

that Mr. Boyd cannot get a fair trial in the state of South Carolina as a result of Mr. Tensley stating what ultimately has been proven to be the truth. That's what they want you to find in a declaratory judgment action. Well, that's interesting, really, because it's an end around the wrongful death suit. In other words, Dessa and Weldon are using this motion for declaratory judgment as a loophole to get what they want in the wrongful death case.

Let's go to Dessa now. Keep in mind, when she says Judge Griffith's name, she makes it a point to emphasize it, and she looks in John T's direction. Again, I do not agree with Dessa. And John T. did a really great job in this hearing, but I do appreciate her pettiness. It's really hard not to.

Thank you, Your Honor. I was looking for the jury to see where Mr. Lange was addressing his comments. That was quite a jury argument, Your Honor. We're on a legal issue. We're here on a motion to dismiss. Despite Mr. Lange's vigorous advocacy, I've got to point out several things that he's just dead wrong about. He used the word chaos.

We have described in our complaint, a set of facts that created chaos solely at the hands of Scott's finding. It's clear in the complaint. We have set it out. He said that our lawsuit is against public policy. Well, I'm sorry, I submitted a brief, Your Honor, which I assumed you've read. Have you received our brief, Your Honor? Thank you, Your Honor. There's no law that requires Your Honor to consider public policy at this stage of the litigation. He also argued that we have to show that Mr. Tinsley acted in bad faith. No, we don't. We have alleged in a complaint, well-planned fact that set forth the basis for our cause of action for declaratory relief. Mr. Lay said, I lost care.

The number of times he said, that's not actionable. Well, I'm not asking for something that's actionable. Mr. Boyd has specifically waived his right to recover damages against the, defendant in this case. We have sought a declaratory judge for action and we have provided you with detailed background regarding the equitable powers of this court. Where they originated, what they're for and what they say is that when there is a wrong, the equity court has to fashion a remedy. That's all

we're asking. It's very simple. And I disagree with my my learning counsel about your reviewing, please, in another lawsuit, by the way, a pleading in a lawsuit that's never even been identified in this case, everything, Mr. Lay argued to, Your Honor, everything is outside this complaint. The only thing the court can consider, the only thing you can consider at this point is the well-planned allegations of our complaint. You have to assume them to be true. You cannot and must not consider Judge Griffin's order, not Judge Griffin's order, but Judge Griffith's order in an unrelated case because that disputes the facts in our case. Never mind who wrote that order, if you're only matter here.

What matters here is that we have alleged facts that assert a cause of action that would be for defamation. If the defendant did not have judicially created immunity under the bar case, And there's no doubt that when somebody makes false factual statements about another individual, the common law provides him with a remedy. No question about that. But for the judicially created immunity set forth in the Gar case. It's Gar versus Gore-Leach, I believe. We're not asking for something that's actionable.

We're asking for a declaration. We're asking for a declaration that an individual who happens to be a licensed lawyer, an individual cannot in pursuit of his own celebrity, tell lies about another person. You know, Judge, just give us a piece of paper that says Mark sucks. That's what we want. Too bad for Dessa. Judge Hyman was paying attention.

Divulge confidential information about another person. Let me ask you right there. What is the confidential information? As we've set forth in our complaints, Your Honor, most of what was released by the defendant in this case, what stuff that was obtained by him from the Oregon County Police Department. But what part of that is confidential? Sledge was not supposed to download all that information off of Mr. Boyd's file. That was inappropriate, and the judge, Judge Griffith has already ruled on that, that they were not supposed to download all that.

But my point is, was there any gag order saying that? There was, but not until after all this misconduct occurred. There was a gag order issued in, for the end of last year, after all this damage had been done. Yes, Judge Griffith issued a gag order telling Mr. Tensley to shut up. He didn't.

That order also told Mr. Tensley to not release discovery information that he obtained in the litigation. He didn't stop. Your Honor, this is a simple set of facts where a person who happens to be a lawyer told a false story. He got the world to believe it. He got Judge Griffith to believe it.

So, no. The gag order was issued long after the Spivey story began to hit the headlines again in 2025. And the order merely prevented Mark Tinsley from disclosing discovery produced him by the defendants, specifically Weldon Boyd's medical records. Judge Griffith didn't admonish Mark for speaking to the media or Jennifer Spivey Foley for sharing public information from the Ory County case file. But can we talk about he got the world to believe it and he got Judge Griffith to believe it? Is she saying we were all hoodwinked when we heard Brandon Strickland tell Weldon Boyd that he sent the quote-unquote write people to the scene to help

with the investigation? Were we hoodwinked when we saw Officer Damon Viscovy tell Weldon Boyd to act like a victim for the body cameras? Were we hearing things? When Weldon told Bradley to delete evidence and lie to the police? Was Judge Griffith hoodwinked when he sat mere feet from Weldon and listened to him boo-hoo his way through his version of events? Weldon has made the record perfectly clear what his so-called truth is here.

After Dessa did her Dizzle, as our Cup of Justice co-host Eric Blan likes to say, John T got back up to set the record straight. They're truly acting on a premise that is false and wants you to ignore the actual fact. Fact. Mr. Tensley has a different point of view of what happened. He is litigating that. Even in the complaint, everything they say is they're having a problem. with the way Mr. Tensley describe how this incident occurred when he's representing Ms. Bobby

as personal representative of the estate. They can't avoid culpability for that. They can't avoid responsibility for having to live with that fact that is inconvenient for them by simply saying Mr. Tensley did it for his ego. And where did we get this complaint that they They don't understand the wrongful death complaint. It hasn't been referenced.

Well, of course, it has. We all know what we're talking about. We all know what we are talking about, and so does the judge. You are object. He's going into discovery that we've served that they've ignored. That has nothing to do with the motion to dismiss. Nothing. Well, it's about to.

I could do it. And I will say, I mean, the complaint references the wrongful death suit. death suit. I mean that you agree with that correct it mentions the filing of a suit it does not identify it is not and it's not being retained by the spive family correct you talk about him filing on behalf of the spive family a wrongful debt suit I never said a wrongful death no the complaint does not say that okay but the discovery does you and your this is a definite you get there I'm going to overrule your objection.

Thank you, Your Honor. The judge then asked if anyone wanted to add anything. Indessa, of course, did. She wanted to point out that her motion to bar John T. from using Judge Griffith's order was not docketed for this hearing. So basically, she is saying John T. Lay, who needed to argue against the premise contained Indessa's complaint to show that this case warrants dismissal. per Rule 12 should not have been allowed to use the order

to discredit the premise of Dess's complaint to show that this case warns dismissal per Rule 12. And Your Honor, I would also bring up my motion to strike, which was not on the roster for today, but obviously is relevant to what's occurred here. It is. And as to that, this is a judicial proceeding. I have already viewed it prior to even seeing the motion to strike.

So for that, I'm going to overrule that objection and deny your motion to strike that. I will say, you know, a DJ action by its very nature is a remedy. It's not a standalone torque. And that's what confuses me about us being here in the first place is I don't know what we're remedying. You know, if the question is whether or not a Weldon Boy can, receive a fair trial, I can't tell you that. A jury can't tell you that. A imposed panel may be able to tell you that, but that would all be during the court dire. I just, again, I'm just kind of throwing that out there because it is a, generally speaking, a DJ is a remedy, not a court. And so I'm just trying to

figure out what are we trying to remedy by this action. You want to answer now, Your Honor, as we have set forth in detail in our memoranda. A declaratory judgment action addresses an existing controversy. It doesn't seek a remedy. It seeks a declaration of what the parties rights are. That's all we're asking for. And the equitable jurisdiction of this court specifically requires that the court fashion a tool to allow us to pursue the adjudication of those rights and a declaration from a court as to what my client's rights are versus what the defendant's rights are. Well, is the right that you're trying to get a declaratory judgment on? Is it a right to a fair trial? Is that what you're saying? It's a declaratory judgment setting forth the rights and

obligations of the parties as to the controversy in question, just what the statute says. And what is the controversial question? That's what I'm trying. You keep saying it's not the wrongful debt action. It's not. It's not the wrongful debt action. It is. blatant intentional manipulation of a factual scenario for Mr. Tinsley's own personal purposes. It has nothing to do with the representation of a client. Nothing. Mr. Tinsley is attempting to make himself famous doing a pretty good job, judging on the number of cameras very much.

Your Honor, the Supreme Court, I worked at the Supreme Court. the early 80s when the Supreme Court was looking at the possibility of regulating what lawyers can do by way of advertising. And that was before the internet, of course. But the Supreme Court of South Carolina had to be sued in federal court before they were willing to even allow lawyer advertising. And I'll leave to your discretion, how good that's been for us. But what is not allowed and what is clearly not allowed is for a lawyer, for whatever reason, to try to make himself famous by telling lies about my client, by telling a false narrative about my crime.

Oh, Dessa, you are good for a laugh. There was barely any media at this hearing. We had a camera recording the WebEx stream. The true crime felon was there, but he sat behind Dessa and near Weldon's lawyer Ken Moss, which stick a pin in that one. A reporter from the Post and Courier was there, but was not video recording it, according to the form that was filed in the public index.

And there weren't two TV reporters from the PD, meaning two local reporters whose medium is in video. And that's it. Oh, and the lawyer from Netflix who was probably wondering why Netflix was at all relevant to this, because again, Netflix doesn't typically create documentaries. They buy them. Oh, and no small point.

Mark wasn't even there. You would think a camera-hungry, attention-starved celebrity wannabe would have been there for his close-up. But no, he sure wasn't. Also, the judge was basically being like, I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here. And that is all of us right now. More on that after a quick break.

Okay, back to the Boyd v. Tinsley hearing. Here is Weldon's attorney Dessa again. Your Honor, I try to display a case before the Supreme Court, probably 10 or 15 years ago. Jane Toll was still the Chief Justice. And I was saying to that my client, the lawyer's conduct and not a perfect connection with the practice of law. And she came across the bench and almost eight

me alive and she said, are you telling me the lawyer's conduct in his private life is not subject to regulation by this court? Talk about any question. No, a lawyer's conduct 24-7 is subject to a higher standard of care than any other individual on birth. A lawyer can't lie. A lawyer can't manipulate a false narrative for any purpose.

But for the Gar case, which was, I think, in the mid-80s, but for the Gar case, my client would have an absolute right to sue him for defamation. Today, he would have an absolute right to do that. Oh, right. See, lawyers have a privilege in which they are allowed to speak publicly about the case on half of their clients. Dessa's complaint tried to separate Mark from that privilege to hold him accountable, singularly, but also as a lawyer, which was confusing. And to make it more confusing, Dessa filed a brief shortly before that hearing that incorporated Mark's staff and his client

Jennifer Spivey Foley as being included in her use of the word you. So, Your Honor, please don't ignore the wrongful death case, but also consider it, but no. Don't consider it. Just, you know, consider it. Back to Dessa. He wants to be a celebrity. He's doing a good job, but he's doing it at the cost of my client, and that cannot be allowed. That cannot be allowed. This case has to go forward for the fashion of an equitable remedy as determined appropriate after an advisory jury, if the court deems appropriate to include an advisory jury. That's up to the court unless the party stipulate to it. To fashion an equitable remedy once the facts are determined.

We don't know what the facts are. The jury will have to determine that. The advisory jury will have to determine that. Your Honor, a motion to dismiss this case. Can I go forward? Anything else need to add on there? I mean, I hear this. Let me explore real quickly up here.

I think y'all both speak loud enough. Yeah, loud enough is for sure. Also, before the hearing ended, Ken Moss stood up and asked to be heard in a sidebar with the judge. Ken Moss, remember this guy? Call Ken, okay? No, we see Ken. Okay. Yeah, we see Ken too.

So back to Dust's argument. She's saying, you're not allowed to. mention the wrongful death case because I didn't mention it in the complaint. And I didn't mention it because this isn't about the wrongful death case. This is about Weldon not having the ability to get a fair trial in a case, a non-specific and hypothetical case that isn't so hypothetical, but don't bring it up. Now, in the Mallory Beach boat crash case, Parker's Kitchens attorneys argued that the Beach family's civil conspiracy case was filed as an end run around discovery in the boat crash case. The civil conspiracy case, as you all know by now,

accuses Parker's kitchen's owner Greg Parker of allowing confidential court materials, including photos of Mallory Beach's dead body, to be leaked to a third party, which caused them to be used in the production of a documentary on the Murdoch case. It's a separate issue from the boat crash case, but Parker's Kitchen tried to argue that the two were connected and a judge rejected that argument.

That said, John T. Lay is sort of making that same argument against Dessa. But in this case, there is no separate issue. The wrongful death case is the wrongful death case. And no confidential court materials were made public, plain and simple. There is nothing Dessa could point to that shows that the public has materials that aren't public information. Sure, body camera footage is not responsive to FOIA. But it doesn't mean it's not public information, accessible through discovery in civil cases, and presented in open court, i.e. the public, in criminal cases. In this case, just because body camera footage is not responsive to FOIA,

it doesn't mean the public is absolutely barred from seeing it. So Judge Hyman took the arguments under advisement. And Dessa immediately filed a memo in opposition to Mark Tinsley's motion to dismiss. And she also filed a motion to reconsider on Judge Hyman overruling her objection to John T using parts of Judge Griffith's order to argue against. the assertions in Dess's motion for declaratory judgment. Then, on June 18th, Judge Hyman issued this ruling with a promise of issuing a longer, formal order.

He rejected Dess's motion to reconsider, and he dismissed the case against Mark. So, Weldon's little meltdown filing got the swift kick it deserves in our opinions, and we will soon know what Judge Hyman's reasoning on that was. In the meantime, that is not the only anti-Mark Tinsley meltdown coming from Weldon and his camp. On June 9th, Weldon Boyd's attorney, Ken Moss, filed a stunning and bizarre motion to remove Judge Bubba Griffith from the Scott Spivey wrongful death case. Again, Judge Bubba Griffith denied Weldon and his co-shooter Bradley Williams stand-your-ground immunity this year, and that decision kept the door open for both men to possibly face criminal charges in Scott's death. We are still waiting,

for the outcome of that investigation. So, in that motion, Ken Musk claimed that Weldon recently, quote, learned of facts, which demonstrate that the impartiality of Judge Griffith may be reasonably questioned because of Judge Griffith's personal participation in settlement negotiations

involving the other parties to this action, plaintiff through attorney Mark Tensley, and defendant Kenneth Brassie, Bradley Williams. And what was there proof of that, you ask? Well, Moss claimed he had an affidavit, suggesting that Judge Griffith and Mark Tensley discussed the possibility of granting Bradley Williams immunity in exchange for false testimony during the hearing in February. But what's wild is Moss did not file the affidavit with his motion, nor did he ever reveal this mysterious person, who supposedly said this highly defamatory statement about Tinsley, Bradley's attorney Morgan Martin,

and the judge, which is, let's be frank, accusing all three of criminal conspiracy to suborn perjury from Bradley Williams, and he provided zero proof of this wild accusation. Instead, like Dessa Ballard, Ken spent the majority of his legal arguments whining about how this case was just unfair to old Weldon. Weldon, the boy who got his mind eased by Deputy Chief of Ory County Police, who essentially told him he had nothing to worry about. He just had to let the process happen, and he and Bradley would be fine. Moss listed other alleged acts and omissions that he claims proves that Judge Griffith was showing bias. Oddly, though, those acts and omissions described in this document were actually just pro-media slash sunlight

slash press. They were not anti-weldon. Moss complained about the number of TV cameras in the courtroom during the hearing, the timing of the approval of live streaming right before the hearing, and the meeting that we've told you all about many times between the media and Judge Griffith, where my husband, David Moses, all by himself, successfully advocated for transparency and public interest and persuaded the judge to approve live streaming for the hearing. Isn't that weird that they think pro-transparency means anti-Weldon? Hmm.

Further and weirder, you might want to grab a tinfoil hat for this one, because Ken Moss also complained that the media captured images of events in the courtroom while court was not in session. They falsely complained that this was against Rule 605, which it is not. We know that because our legal team had to argue about this in court this week during my civil contempt hearing. After Jim Bannister, Greg Parker's attorney, unsuccessfully argued that Luna Shark Media

should be banned from recording my own hearing because we captured quote-unquote, unflattering their word, not mine, images of them in court when court was not in session. There is no rule against this. and they lost the argument in court. I can't wait to tell you all about that in a later episode. But I don't know, guys, I feel like they're up to something. Are these lawyers working together to get this rule change so that they can selectively ban media outlets

from covering courtroom proceedings? Like Luna Shark and only Luna Shark. Also, as a part of this frivolous motion accusing Mark Tensley, Morgan Martin, and Judge Griffiths, of a conspiracy with no evidence to back those claims up, Ken Moss subpoenaed multiple media outlets, including Lunashark.

David, will you read our lovely subpoena from old Kenny Moss? Any and all video and or audio content that was recorded, memorialized, or captured during the proceedings related to case number 2024 CP26-0379. occurring between 9 a.m. E.T. and 6 p.m. E.st. on the dates of February 17, 20, 26, whether recorded during active court or during court recesses slash adjournments. Any and all communication by you or your agent on your behalf, including, but not limited to, David Moses. Ben Huff and Eric Daume

with the Ory County Clerk of Court, any agent or employee thereof and or circuit court judge Eugene C. Griffith, or his staff related to case number 2024 C.P. 26-03798 from February 1, 2026 to the present. Any and all applications for media coverage of court proceedings under Rule 605,

SCACR related to case number 2024 CP26-03798 together with any transmittal thereof. So, as you heard a little bit ago, we live stream the proceedings. So go look at the live stream, Ken. It is publicly available. You can see there what the camera picked up. Also, what are you doing here, buddy? Trying to make it look like Lunar Shark did something wrong? Joining the old troll bandwagon once again?

I mean, it's not surprised. given that your law firm appears to have been or maybe continues to be a sponsor of the True Crime Felon's highly defamatory website that he uses to fixate on Mandy, me, David, Eric Bland, and Beth Braden. In what seems like a very fine-tuned effort to silence us online and end us professionally. Because we recorded the proceedings in the same public courtroom you were in Ken, want on you cut to the chase and show everyone your super secret affidavit that proves this criminal conspiracy to suborn perjury that you are saying the judge and the lawyers took part in.

More on that after a quick break, and we'll be right back. On June 17th, Tensley fired a fiery response to Weldon's motion to recuse that said the allegations of him engaging in a conspiracy to suborn perjury are patently false. Let me have David read this part of the response. Defendant Boyd has made baseless, wild, false, and misinformed accusations against plaintiff's counsel, counsel for defendant Williams, and this court. The narrative, defendant recites in his motion, could be summarily brushed aside if the allegations were not so serious. They are without factual foundation, but that has not stopped defendant Boyd and his counsel from filing those allegations in the public record. No one asked or even suggested that Mr. Williams, quote, testify falsely in this

proceeding or asked him to, quote, fabricate testimony. Boyd's counsel's account of those conversations is false. He claims it is based upon his recalling conversations that took place, but no such offers were ever made, and he knows it. Those recitations demonstrate a lack of candor and amount to false statements to the tribunal. Tinsley said that, yes, there was a discussion about Bradley Williams testifying, but it was actually the opposite of what this supposed affidavit is claiming. He said he told Bradley's attorney that if Bradley would testify truthfully and completely, they would withdraw their motion in opposition of Bradley's immunity. Tinsley said that Bradley ultimately rejected that deal, and the court found that Bradley failed to do that to

testify truthfully and completely. So what Weldon is accusing the judge and two lawyers are doing doesn't even make sense. Again, even more stunning, Ken never coughed up the alleged affidavit signed by this mysterious person. I'm sorry, but can we just talk about the audacity of that? In fact, he didn't just not include it with his motion to recuse. He refused to produce it, according to Tinsley, after being asked for it multiple times. For Weldon and Ken Moss to take a below-the-belt shot at Mark the Tiger, Tinsley, and Judge Griffith, with literally nothing to back it up, how did they think that was going to work out for them?

I'm not asking that rhetorically either. This whole thing is so bizarre. I can't even guess at why they would think this was a good move. Even if it's some misguided PR strategy, it still doesn't make sense. Again, does just the mere fact that Mark is involved in the case caused these people to malfunction? And who is this person behind the affidavit?

We don't know, but we do think it's interesting that we know of a certain criminal who attended that hearing that week, who has a history of lying to authorities and inserting himself in criminal cases for attention while cosplaying as a journalist. Could it be him? I mean, it's got to be someone embarrassing, right? Why else wouldn't you share the evidence with the parties? If there was a legitimate reason to keep this person's identity a secret out of respect for, say, anonymity, then wouldn't they have said that in the filing or to the parties? Defendant Boyd's motion did not merely challenge a ruling of this court. Instead, Boyd accused this court,

plaintiff's counsel and counsel for defendant Williams of participating in conduct amounting to witness tampering, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and related misconduct that implicates numerous portions of the canons of judicial conduct and the rule of professional conduct. Those allegations were filed in the public record and were presented as purported grounds for disqualification of the court. After plaintiff responded and demonstrated the lack of factual support for those false allegations, defendant Boyd refused to produce the, quote, proof, and instead sought to withdraw the motion without prejudice, but with the stated ability to refile it in the future. Having chosen to place these specious accusations of criminal,

and ethical misconduct against a party, a judge and numerous lawyers into the public record, defendant Boyd, should not now be permitted to avoid examination of those serious accusations by unilaterally withdrawing the motion while reserving the right to make the same allegations again. I don't know about you, but I just heard a roar and a gulp and uh-oh. Tinsley is mad. And he should be. He added, quote, public confidence in the administration of justice is not enhanced when allegations of criminal conduct by a sitting circuit judge and officers of the court are filed, publicized, and then abandoned without examination. So Tinsley is asking for a few things to make this right. He wants the court to set a hearing wherein Ken Moss will be forced to present the evidence he had to make such wild accusations and where the court can determine if that evidence is considered competent. And finally, David, will you read the last two requests?

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court require defendant Boyd and his counsel to show cause why the court should not impose sanctions against them as the court deems appropriate under Rule 11, SCRC, and the court's inherent authority if it determines the motion was filed without evidentiary support or for an improper. purpose and grant such other and further relief as the court deems just end proper, including an award of fees and costs to plaintiff's counsel. This could get really interesting, because again, these people are losing it. For the past three months, I have been accused of hating the justice system in South Carolina and having no respect for it or its rules. But that is not accurate. The problem we all have with this system in South Carolina is that it has emboldened lawyers to play ridiculous and retaliatory games, to waste people's time and money and energy and harm their mental health, to assert power

and control over opponents simply because they can and not because it's necessary. It's a sport to these people, and the rules are written in support of that sport. The public index is used as a platform for lawyers to embarrass each other and their opponents. In our opinions, the Office of Disciplinary Council is so worthless and dysfunctional that it entertains meritless and retaliatory filings against lawyers and then sits on legitimate complaints for years to either run out the clock on the public's memory for the people they want to protect or cause years-long stress for the lawyers against whom these frivolous complaints get filed. And the bar just thinks it's perfect and there's nothing to see here. It's all politics and it's all bad and corrupt. Because again, the legislator

lawyers have a significant and direct say and who their judges are. They literally pick their judges and then they get hired and paid big bucks to tag onto a lawsuit to delay proceedings and protect the person who can pay the most. This isn't even to mention what goes on in the courtroom. Lawyers like Dick Harputlian and Deborah Barbier really want people to think that we just don't understand how the system works, that defense attorneys are just doing their jobs, and we're just too dumb to understand that.

But what we have is an issue with the games, the politics, the system that allows legislator lawyers to choose the judges, the judges who give in to the politics, the backroom allowances and permissiveness where certain attorneys don't even feel obligated to file settlement records because they just know that certain judges wouldn't challenge them. Or their ability for money to pay for certain outcomes. the unequal application of the law, the use of courtrooms to bully and harass with no authoritative voice saying, what on earth are y'all doing here? That is what we have no respect for. When lawyers can't argue the facts, they pound the table, right? That table pounding should be stopped.

It should not be allowed, because as it stands right now, it is nothing more than a legalized, form of terrorism. And y'all, that is not what the law is for. Yes, fight for yourself. Defend yourself in court, but do it using the facts and the law. Don't use people in their lives to get you there. We have so much more to share on this case. And now we are fully committed to covering every single iota of the Beach v. Parker Civil Conspiracy case. Please join us on Facebook on the book live Thursday, June 25th at noon eastern to watch my hearing from Monday. And please consider showing up for the Beach family on the week of July 6 at the Beaufort County Courthouse. I will be traveling, so we'll be watching from the WebEx with premium members and chatting elsewhere.

But the Beach family and justice demands your support. Plus, pink looks great on camera. Until next time, stay tuned, stay pesky, and stay in the sunlight. True Sunlight is a Luna Shark production created by me, Mandy Matney, co-hosted and reported by journalist Liz Farrell. Research support provided by Beth Braden. Audio production support provided by Jamie Hoffman and Grace Hills. Case file management by Kate Thomas. Learn more about our mission and membership at LunaSharkmedia.com.

Interruptions provided by Luna and Joe Pesky. Years before, the name Ehrlich Murdoch was splashed across every major media outlet. I was a local South Carolina journalist, and I had an instinct that something wasn't right in the low country. The powerful Murdoch dynasty dominated rural South Carolina for generations. Few dared to publicly utter a harsh word against them. From the newsroom to the courtroom to the kitchen table where we recorded the number one global hit, The Murdoch Murdoch Murders podcast, I invite you to learn more about my book, Blood on Their Hands. Blood on their hands is a harrowing first-person narrative of battles against systemic subversions of the truth,

overcoming institutional sexism, corruption, and threats to my personal safety to expose a network of horrific crimes and give voice to victims. Click the link in the description to order today. Visit any retailers near you or visit lunasharkmedia.com slash book to learn the best way you can stay pesky and stay in the summer. light.