Murdaugh Murders Podcast - Was Mandy Matney Punished By The Court For Speaking Out Against The SC Judiciary? TSP #159 [Part One]

Starting point is 00:00:01 I don't know what Judge R. Keith Kelly will decide after my team of attorneys submitted a motion to reconsider the unprecedented penalty against me in his civil contempt order. But today, we need to talk about what this motion says and why this case is so much bigger than me. My name is Mandy Matney. This is True Sunlight, a podcast exposing crime and corruption, previously known as the Murdoch Murdoch's podcast. True Sunlight is a Lunar Shark production, written with journalist Liz Farrell. Well, well, well. To start out, federal judge Gergel dismissed Elyke Murdoch's lawsuit against Becky Hill on Wednesday. And of course, he did that on a Wednesday. We will talk more about that in part two of this episode, which will be out later this week and early for premium members.

Starting point is 00:01:00 This week, my team of attorneys, Tristan Schaefer, Eric Bland, Stuart Axelry, and Rebecca Lindahl filed a motion asking the court to reconsider the $176,500 penalty imposed against me for requesting that my deposition in the Beachby Parker case be held in a safe location. This is the first step toward an appeal, and hopefully justice in a case where I am not only a non-party, but also a journalist, a case that should concern every person who calls themselves a whistleblower or journalist in the state of South Carolina and beyond. A case that should concern every woman in a state that apparently prioritizes lawyers' egos over women's safety. Our motion argues that Judge R. Keith Kelly's contempt proceedings and order

Starting point is 00:01:56 violated my first, fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendment rights, and that the order should be vacated or at minimum, Judge Kelly should substantially, reduce the fees and change the language of the order. You can read the full motion by clicking the link in the description. But first, I want to tell you that these arguments that we're going to lay out today are only possible because of our surge in premium memberships and GoFundMe contributions that are sending a big message to the system. Seriously, I want to stop and reflect on that for a minute. This motion to reconsider is a gamble, and the appeal is a gamble.

Starting point is 00:02:36 we could lose. We could end up having to pay them more than $176,500. But we are fighting this on principle. Because what happened to me was wrong. And if it happened to me in the sunlight, I can't imagine what it's like for women and people of color fighting this system in the dark. If we didn't have the funds that you all so generously contributed, the only other option was to give up. and accept this injustice. Without the legal fund, we simply could not run the risk of fighting back. So here we are, fighting the good fight, trying to make the system better for all of us. Today, I want to talk about my motion to reconsider

Starting point is 00:03:22 and break it down for y'all to understand. And I know speaking about this motion is also a legal gamble at this point. And it shouldn't be, because in the United States, the First Amendment is supposed to protect its citizens, from being persecuted by their government for their speech. So, I have a unique and also very awful opportunity here as a podcaster and a journalist to continue to exercise my First Amendment rights

Starting point is 00:03:50 by exposing all of the injustice that took place in my case. Why am I doing this when there is so much injustice in the world, so many other murders that we could solve, and so many other cases that need our attention? Because what happened to me could have happen to any single one of you if you dare to speak out against the powerful. Because this is so much bigger than me, and we have to unpack how skewed this process was from the beginning for all of us to fully understand what is at stake.

Starting point is 00:04:21 So I've been replaying a lot of traumatic memories from this whole process in the past few weeks. My brain kept getting stuck on one thing that left me so confused and angry. How is it that nobody from my side? ever saw this coming. How come I had no warning about what ended up happening on April 7th when Judge R. Keith Kelly summoned me to attend a hearing. The email said a rule to show cause hearing would happen, but there were multiple rule to show cause motions pending in the case. I thought my issue was one of the issues in front of the court, not the issue. During the four-hour

Starting point is 00:05:01 drive to Gaffney, South Carolina, I asked what would happen in this hearing, read the case and Parker's team hadn't filed an affidavit with their rule to show cause. The judge should probably see that and know that it was a fatal defect to the motion, meaning that the motion would fail. My lawyers thought at worse, Judge Kelly would have yelled at me and sternly told me to attend a deposition somewhere neutral and safe like a courthouse, which ended up happening, but that definitely wasn't the worst of it. Now, in my motion for reconsideration, my new team of attorney,

Starting point is 00:05:35 attorneys with Tristan Schaefer leading the way. They have articulated exactly how out of sync this process has been with the law from the very beginning. And all of it makes so much more sense as to why no one knew what would happen on April 7th, back when we mistakenly thought we were on the same playing field as Greg Parker's team, and that all of this would be by the books. David, will you read the part of my motion that addresses this initial problem? South Carolina separates direct contempt conduct in the court's presence from constructive contempt, conduct outside it. The difference controls how the proceeding must begin. Constructive contempt must be initiated by affidavit or verified petition. See Miller v. Miller. Failure to support a rule

Starting point is 00:06:29 to show cause by affidavit or verified position is a fatal defect for. constructive contempt. Ms. Matney's alleged contempt, not appearing at a noticed deposition location, is constructive contempt. It happened outside the courtroom. Parker's defendant's motion for rule to show cause was not verified and carried no affidavit. Basically, what this means is that before a rule to show cause hearing can even be heard, a judge needs to evaluate a verified petition or affidavit, a.k.a. sworn testimony to see if there's enough evidence to support holding that hearing. In my case, Judge R. Keith Kelly allowed Greg Parker's attorneys to use the rule to show cause hearing to establish grounds for a rule to show cause hearing to be held.

Starting point is 00:07:23 After my attorneys objected to this and brought up the lack of a verified petition to justify the April 7th hearing multiple times, it wasn't until the June 20, 22nd hearing in Spartanburg that Judge Kelly clarified with the parties that he had already ruled on this. He said he cured the defect with testimony. My sworn testimony. You know, just little old me, unknowingly testifying against myself to make up for Parker's attorney's mistake. I know some of y'all are thinking, but wait, this was a civil proceeding. The right to not testify against yourself only applies to a crime.

Starting point is 00:08:03 Well, stick a pin in that. Anyway, we are arguing that Judge Kelly erred in allowing me to testify like that. David, back to the motion. A merits hearing cannot reach back and supply an initiating pleading the court never had. The requirement is not a technicality. It forces the moving party to swear its facts before it can drag a witness in to testify. Here, the court used Ms. Matney's own compelled testimony to build the basis for the very rule that led to her being held in contempt. A contempt proceeding cannot pull itself into jurisdiction by the respondent's own words.

Starting point is 00:08:47 The error is reversible on its own, whether or not the facts might have supported contempt on a proper petition. Put more bluntly, the April 7th hearing should, have never happened, and the fact that it did means my Fifth Amendment rights were violated, which we'll talk about that in a minute. But there's more to this argument. David? The verified petition requirement is not a formality that a later hearing can paper over. It is a threshold. Either the Parker's defendant's petition for a rule to show cause was supported by a verified pleading or an affidavit or it was not. If it was, no hearing was needed to decide whether the rule should be issued. If it was not, and it was not, the petition was fatally defective,

Starting point is 00:09:40 and the remedy was to deny it, not to convene a hearing so the moving party could build the sworn factual basis it had failed to plead. It makes you wonder, why didn't Judge Kelly deny the motion? It makes you wonder, why did he seem so motivated to move forward that he was willing to, apparently, circumvent the proper process to get there? Those aren't even loaded rhetorical questions that I'm asking to make a point. We are sincerely wondering. Because check this out. Judge Kelly not only allowed Mandy to testify against herself, thereby turning the process inside out,

Starting point is 00:10:22 the timeline of his decision-making essentially tells us. on itself. David, will you keep reading? Ms. Matney was called to the stand on April 7th so that her answers could supply the foundation for a rule that had not yet been issued, and the rule to show cause then issued weeks later on April 30, 2026 on the strength of that testimony. Again, no wonder none of us predicted what would happen on April 7th, because what would that have even sounded it like. Oh, what's going to happen today? Ah, let's see. Judge Kelly is probably going to let Parker skip a step and then make you testify against yourself to fix that problem without telling you that's what you're doing. And even though the hearing, which shouldn't be happening in the first place,

Starting point is 00:11:14 based on that aforementioned error, is to establish that you knew the court ordered you to be deposed within a certain time period that you knew there was a subpoena issued for your deposition and that you didn't go to the address listed on the subpoena. And even though your attorney will admit to all of that in court, the judge is still for some reason going to allow the Parker's attorneys to prejudice him against you by bringing up your social media posts and podcasts, which have no bearing on anything because you've already admitted to the facts. Also, while you're on the you're going to be treated like a criminal and be an abject fear that you're going to jail, while also being rid of guilt for wearing a bathing suit in your own backyard and posting a photo

Starting point is 00:12:01 that barely indicates that. It's stunning, right? Also, stunning is this. Judge Kelly made one thing clear throughout the process, that these hearings were to determine whether Mandy should be held in civil contempt, not criminal, which is a really important distinction here. The law is clear that the penalty for civil contempt is remedial in South Carolina. In other words, to make a thing that is not happening happen, for instance, like a deposition, a finding for civil contempt is not supposed to include a punishment above a potential fine and the reimbursement of, quote, reasonable attorney's fees. Though I suppose one could argue whose attorney's fees are reasonable.

Starting point is 00:12:50 Just kidding. In addition to that, Mandy's contempt hearing was about one thing. Did she willfully violate a court order related to this deposition? Obviously, our position on that is no. But this is all just to say this wasn't about Mandy violating a gag order barring public comment on the case. This wasn't about Mandy obstructing justice or interfering with the administration of the judiciary through her commentary online and on the podcast. It was about the deposition and only the deposition, which brings me to a question of seeing people ask online that I want to answer.

Starting point is 00:13:29 Why didn't Mandy continue to speak up about this case on social media and on the podcast while all of this was going on. wasn't she worried that she would be punished for that? No, she wasn't because she shouldn't have been. Again, Mandy wasn't a criminal defendant, no matter how much the trolls wish that were true with their little AI charts and their very embarrassing play-by-plays. And the fact that Judge Kelly clarified this made it a point to say that this was about civil contempt. And the fact that Mandy was only being accused of willfully disobeying a court order related to a deposition. And the fact that the penalty on civil contempt is limited to a potential fine and reasonable attorney's fees. Oh, and the fact that Mandy had already complied with the order by sitting for her deposition on April 8th, there should not have been any risk associated with her publicly sharing

Starting point is 00:14:23 her opinions about what she was going through. And yet, the judge sure did do that. But stick a pin in that because we have more to say about the criminal versus civil contempt part. Here's what Mandy's motion says about the difference between the two. Civil contempt is remedial. It coerces compliance or compensates the complainant, and it is proven by clear and convincing evidence. Criminal contempt is punitive. Its primary purposes are to preserve the court's authority and to punish for disobedience of its orders, and because it is punishment, it carries the protections of a criminal case. See, Poston v. Poston. The threshold for holding someone in criminal contempt is much higher, and the prosecution of it

Starting point is 00:15:11 looks much different from a civil contempt hearing. And I would have had more rights as a defendant in a criminal contempt trial. But you got that, right? It's easy. Criminal contempt and civil contempt are two vastly different things. You are either being tried for one or the other. You really need to know which one you're defending yourself against. And there's no cut and pasting allowed. A judge can't hold you in civil contempt and then penalize you under the statute for criminal contempt. And yet, that is what happened. Well, in our opinions, David, will you read the part of the motion that explains what we mean? A criminal contempt punishment cannot be imposed in a proceeding brought and tried as civil contempt. Gompers held exactly that, reversing a contempt judgment

Starting point is 00:16:04 and directing that the proceeding be dismissed because a punitive punishment, quote, could not properly be imposed in contempt proceedings, end quote, conducted as civil contempt. The reason is that criminal contempt carries protections civil contempt does not. The accused, quote, is presumed to innocent. He must be proved to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot be compelled to testify against himself." End quote. In a criminal contempt proceeding, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the court did not provide Ms. Matney with the rights afforded to criminal defendants by the South Carolina Constitution, such as those listed under Article 1, Section 11 of the South Carolina Constitution.

Starting point is 00:16:55 Moreover, criminal defendants have a Fifth Amendment right not to be called as witnesses in their own cases. Ms. Matney was held to the clear and convincing standard, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. She was never told she faced criminal contempt, and she was compelled to testify at the April 7 hearing that produced the basis for the rule against her. So Judge Kelly called this a civil proceeding, and yet I was treated like a criminal and punished like a criminal, while not being allowed the rights afforded to criminals to defend myself. Again, it's clear as day to me. The whole process was whack. But this shouldn't just be clear to me. In fact, please remove me from all of this. Pretend it is someone else. Pretend that you have no opinion on whether or not I did the right thing or the wrong thing. Does any of that sound fair or correct to you? Or does this sound like legal errors that the appellate court needs to look at?

Starting point is 00:18:06 As a lot of you know, Judge Kelly seemed incredibly willing to leave the door open for Parker's attorneys when it came to entering stacks of what they called evidence against Mandy, but really it was just social media posts stripped of their context. and with Parker's slanted and intellectually dishonest meaning applied to them. But when it came Mandy's turn to enter evidence in support of the fear that she had that the felon, Jim Seidel, who was threatening to attend her deposition, would in fact do that, given his publicly declared cozy relationship with the Parker's attorneys, a relationship that had already resulted in a litany of damaging public behaviors on the felons part,

Starting point is 00:18:47 including at least one potential crime involving the same. of our work-related text messages, all meant to destroy my and Mandy's professional reputations, our will to continue the work we do, and the company that Mandy built from nothing. Evidence, including the timeline of the felon's ever-increasing fixation on Mandy, compared with the timeline of Parker's filings in connection to her deposition, that would have helped the judge understand why Parker's attorney's aggressive behavior surrounding the scheduling of her deposition and their refusal to depose her at her attorney's office felt suspicious and unsafe to her. Judge Kelly slammed that door shut. Every time he was like,

Starting point is 00:19:31 what is this off to do with her contempt in her deposition? And yet, the order he signed, the one Debbie Barbier wrote for him, says Mandy failed to prove that her safety concerns were valid. Ugh, you don't say. You didn't let her submit evidence. So how could you? could she? But also, let's never forget the chaos Parker's attorneys create to distract from the real issues and the real facts, which is why I think this part of Mandy's motion is so important. David. Judge Kelly's order asks whether Ms. Matney proved Parker's defendants caused her safety concerns. That is the wrong question. The question for contempt is narrower. Whether her stated concerns, her emergency request for guidance, her hiring of private security, and her present,

Starting point is 00:20:16 in Bluffton at a nearby secured location add up to clear and convincing proof that she meant to defy the court. The order's own facts that she showed up in Bluffton, hired security, had counsel present, and appeared by Zoom, point to someone trying to comply without compromising her own safety. Was Judge Kelly considering the question for contempt, or did the circus that Parker's attorneys created over Mandy's social media posts mislead him into thinking that this whole thing was about whether Debbie and Mark scare Mandy and that's why she didn't go to the location they insisted on.

Starting point is 00:20:56 Parker's so-called evidence against Mandy seemed to be 95% about things that she had said online about them personally after her deposition was taken. Is that why the court found that she willfully disobeyed a subpoena when the record shows she was trying to comply without compromising her personal safety, when Judge Kelly's order shows that she was trying to comply without compromising her personal safety.

Starting point is 00:21:23 Again, I'm not asking these questions rhetorically. I really want answers because I am so confused about how we ended up here given the question in front of the court and the guidance provided by the statute on civil contempt. So yeah, where's the due process? Raise your hand if you're still wearing the same glasses you've had for three years because replacing the... feels like an unnecessary expense. I was that person, y'all. Scratches manageable. Lose screw? I overlooked

Starting point is 00:21:57 that. Then I found Zinny and realized I had been dramatically overthinking this whole thing. I ordered a pair of prescription frames from Zinney, went online, picked out a style I actually loved, entered my prescription, customized my lenses, and they were right there at my door. The whole thing cost a fraction of what I would have paid at a traditional optician. You just stopped justifying the expense and start thinking about a work pair, a friend pair, and a pair for the beach. Upgrade today with Zeni. Go to Zeni.com slash podcast and use code podcast 15 for 15% off your first order plus free shipping on all U.S. orders over $65. These styles sell out, so don't sit on it. That's z-en-n-i.com slash podcast, promo code podcast 15.

Starting point is 00:22:46 Right now, for a limited time, everyone's part of the Buick team, even you. Buick's employee pricing for you event is on now. Get a purchase credit of up to $3,168 on a 2026 Buick Envision. Surround yourself with signature Buick refinement from an available massaging driver's seat to an expansive panoramic moonroof and a stunning ultra-wide 30-inch diagonal screen. Don't miss Buick's employee pricing for you event. Visit buick.com.ca for more details. So now that we told you about what went wrong in the process, we have to talk about that order.

Starting point is 00:23:30 Ha, the order that Debbie wrote and Judge Kelly signed. We have to talk about why it's so very deeply flawed. David? The order imposes three separate sanctions on Ms. Matney, a non-party witness, a contempt finding $171,500 in attorney's fees and costs to Parker's defense. and a $5,000 fine. Each is independently subject to reconsideration. The label on the proceeding does not control. Although the order calls this, quote, civil contempt, it is the character of each sanction, not its name, that decides what protections apply. A fine that can be avoided by compliance, because the underlying obligation is already performed, is,

Starting point is 00:24:24 punitive and the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause governs it, whatever the proceeding is called. The standard of review favors reconsideration. Although Ms. Matney vehemently disagrees with the many findings of fact of the court, this motion turns on questions of law, including the denial of any chance to see and contest the fee records. Improper procedure, the limits on punishing protected speech, the constitutional proportionality of the sanction, the verified petition requirement, and the standard for adequate excuse. It is overwhelming when it's laid out like that, but essentially what it says is that it doesn't matter that Judge Kelly is calling this a finding of civil contempt. The punishments he chose to give me need to be looked at differently.

Starting point is 00:25:19 And this has nothing to do with the finding itself, even though we think that should be vacated too. But let's start with the most glaring and obvious part of Judge Kelly's order. The part that's making people on the internet real angry in calling for justice in my case. The fact that the court ordered me to pay $171,500 in attorney fees and cost based on billing records it never allowed me to see, denying me due process. The motion says it best. The court ordered Ms. Matney a non-party witness to pay Parker's defendants $171,500 in attorney's fees. It did so on the strength of fee affidavits and billing statements that Parker's defendants filed under seal. Ms. Matney was never allowed to see them. She still has not seen them.

Starting point is 00:26:14 She was told what she owed, but not why, and she was given no way to test a single entry. That is not a fee dispute. It is an order to pay a six-figure bill sight unseen. Ms. Matney could not check the hourly rates. She could not check the hours. She could not check whether three law firms billed three times over for the same task. She could not check whether any of the work had anything to do with the one thing she is accused of, not appearing at a deposition location on a single morning. A person cannot challenge the reasonableness of a bill she is forbidden to read, and no court should make her try. The right to contest an attorney's fee is not a courtesy.

Starting point is 00:26:59 Our court of appeals has explained why fees must be gotten right. Quote, lawyers are officers of the court. The court is an instrument of society for the administration of justice. Justice should be administered economically, efficiently, and expeditiously. The attorney's fee is, therefore, a very important factor in the administration of justice. And if it is not determined with proper relation to that fact, it results in a species of social malpractice that undermines the confidence of the public in the bench and the bar. So this reminds me of something, huh? What is it? Oh, right.

Starting point is 00:27:48 Right. You all remember that Greg Parker sent its team of vampires up to Baltimore to depose me for eight hours last November, right? David, will you read the email I sent to Mark Moore, the Parker's attorneys and Beach attorneys at 9.22 p.m., the night of June 24th, 2025, shortly after the process server they sent my way, wandered around my property, taking pictures and scaring the hell out of me. Hi Mark, it's Liz Farrell. I just got your subpoena. I have a few requests. I live in Harford County, not Baltimore County, so I ask that the deposition be moved to Bel Air. I don't know many people here, so I don't have any suggestions as far as a location goes. The second thing is, I have jury duty at the end of July, so either we can do this and play it by earway or move the deposition to another date. Also, I should tell you now that I don't have any communications that would be responsive to any of those requests. But number three is hilariously silly. It reminds me of when my dog barks at thin air. No matter how

Starting point is 00:28:56 tough he thinks he sounds, it doesn't change the fact that the thing he thinks is there isn't real. I guess that's just how lawyering for a client like yours goes though. OMG. I bet you have a really good recipe for chicken shit salad though. You should share that with the customers of Parker's Kitchen. Anyway, I hope you charge your client a lot for this fool's errand. If you want me to talk super slowly at the deposition to help your team rack up those billable hours for you, it would be my absolute pleasure to do so. I also recommend you stay at the Sagamore Pendry Hotel. It's super pricing. So, let's look at a new date and new location, and hopefully I won't have medical appointments or other work that causes a last-minute delay to inconvenience everyone.

Starting point is 00:29:50 Sound familiar? I learn from the mediocre. Best, Liz. P.S., I just ced Mark Tinsley on this email, so you now have a document responsive to your request. Let me know if you'd like me to bring a copy of it to the depot. I genuinely look forward to disappointing you. The reference to the last-minute delays was a reference to the Times Mark Moore asked the court for extensions and cases we've covered. And number three on the subpoena list was for records that would reflect the non-existent financial transactions between me and Mark Tinsley, the Beach family, and or any associated LLC or company or person connected to them. Because that's how desperate these guys are.

Starting point is 00:30:35 Greg Parker paid Greg Roman. So let's dishonestly make the public think that that's no big deal. by accusing Liz Ferrell and Mandy Manney of the same thing. Anyway, y'all, guess where Parker's legal team stayed while they were in Baltimore for two nights? The Sagamore Pendry Hotel. They took my suggestion for helping them overspend Greg Parker's money. Mark Moore told me they got a good deal, which, sure, you know those luxury five-star hotels and their coupons. Turns out the good deal was probably just, I don't know, billing Munashark for, for it later. I mean, how would we know? Judge Kelly let them submit their billing under seal.

Starting point is 00:31:16 I think it says something, though, that they not only stayed in one of Baltimore's most expensive and posh hotels, they also ate at some very expensive restaurants while in town. How do I know that? I made conversation with Mark Moore after the deposition, y'all. I'm sharing that email today because it used to be kind of funny. Also, because Mark Moore and Debbie Barbier described me as difficult to Judge Kelly when it came to scheduling my deposition. To me, I sound like a delight and as cooperative as one could be given that I believed and I still do believe that that deposition, as well as Mandy's, was simply about harassing us and getting a foothold on some, again, intellectually dishonest headlines for Jim Seidel. By the way, if you're wondering where

Starting point is 00:32:02 the beach attorneys Mark Tinsley and Tabor Vox stayed during my deposition, it was some airport motel. They flew in the night before and were supposed to fly back after my deposition, but Mark Moore made sure it went on too long so that they missed their flights. So they ended up having to pay for an extra night and a flight change. Your honor, okay? I'd love to know how Ms. Farrell knows where Mr. Tinsley and Mr. Vaux. I mean Mr. Vox. I keep doing that. Stayed the night of her deposition, okay? We're going to need to extend discovery. Okay? And I would ask this court, okay, to order all three to produce their text messages and emails and phone records to get to the bottom of this, okay? It's like I can read Mark Moore's mind now, y'all. But calm down, Pickles. I'll just give you the answer. I drove them to their hotel because you assholes didn't get someone to walk me into my car at night in Baltimore. So Mark and Tabor did it and I offered them a ride. But go ahead. Call your felon buddy. Breaking news.

Starting point is 00:33:06 Anyway, the bills. These jerks allegedly spent more than $310,500 to pursue what, in my opinion, amounts to a jaywalking ticket. And instead of looking at that number and saying, you have got to be kidding me, or, oh, wow, this is a new one. And scrapping the whole thing on principle. The principle being, the court isn't meant to be used for this kind of over-the-top and clearly retaliatory pursuit, Judge Kelly thought he was doing something by only rewarding. them $171,500 of that. Is that not some strange logic? I don't want to be the judge who validates a $310,500 contempt charge, so I'll be the judge who validates the equally offensive and ridiculous and questionable $171,500. To me, it's like coals. Everything's on sale, which means nothing about the starting price was ever real, which makes you question how discounted the discount price actually is, which makes you wonder how reflective that so-called discount is of the actual price it should be. They stayed at the Pendry in Baltimore, y'all, for two nights for my deposition. I'm sorry, before we move on, David, will you read some excerpts from the Condonass Review for

Starting point is 00:34:26 the Pendry in Baltimore? Years in the making, this is the first East Coast Hotel for Pendry, the offshoot brand from montage that's aimed at thirsty millennials who think they have great taste. Thirsty millennials who think they have great taste. Oh my goodness. My third floor suite had a lovely balcony overlooking the harbor, a huge soaking tub, a gorgeous desk for actually getting. some work done and electrical outlets, including USB plugs, blessedly coming out of just about everywhere. The huge desk had power plugs built into the top, rather than having to crawl around on the floor to find an outlet. Oh, nope, I do not like that visual. Anything else? The crowd leaned young, and it was heavy on white guys in broad-shouldered jackets,

Starting point is 00:35:22 the Mid-Atlantic uniform for the striving class. That feels right. Not the young part, obviously. I mean, you've seen their unflattering photos. But party on Mark Moore and Debbie Barbier. Am I right? What's the point of being lawyers if you can't stay in a five-star hotel and relive your youth while also not bending down and plug things in? I know this sounds like jokes, which it is. It's definitely jokes. And all of them are apparently on us right now. Just over and over and over again. But I'm not going to let anyone say we deserve this because what's our crime? Being outspoken? Not. lying down and taking it from powerful men who want to shut us up for being spicy? Never forget the imbalance of power dynamics here, people. And never forget that this has been seven years of our lives, dealing with weird, offensive, and seemingly fake social media comments every time we've written about the boat crash case and then the civil conspiracy case, dealing with trolls making up damaging lies about us and our relationships with Mark Tinsley

Starting point is 00:36:24 and other attorneys, dealing with our personal lives, gutted and sift through for kernels that can be manipulated and exploited, having her text messages stolen and nobody doing a thing about it, having a former FBI agent following Mandy around Hilton Head while these fools claim that she has no reason to be scared. How she's supposed to know who that guy is? Having every word we say, every word we write, downloaded, and look through for something that they can use against us. again for what? What did we do? Nothing. It's all punishment and personal retaliation for daring to

Starting point is 00:37:03 cover a case involving the great and powerful gas guy, Greg Parker, and well, for having smart mouths, which is protected under the First Amendment, or it's supposed to be even for the women folk. Okay, let's go back to talking about the violations of Mandy's due process, shall we, David? Due process requires, at a minimum, notice of the claim against a person and a meaningful opportunity to be heard on it. Ms. Matney received neither as to the fees. She had a notice of the number, $171,500. But no notice of what made it up, and no opportunity to be heard on any of it. An opportunity to object to a bill you cannot see is no opportunity at all. courts around the country vacate fee awards imposed this way. Whether the fee papers are sealed,

Starting point is 00:37:58 filed ex parte, or simply never served on a party who must pay them. An award entered without giving that party the records and a chance to be heard cannot stand. Now here is the incredibly odd thing about this. This issue was raised during the June 22nd hearing. Remember, when creepy old Jim Bannister, the attorney whose brother is a state legislator and who served on the legislature with Judge R. Keith Kelly back in the day, and who Greg Parker hired after Judge Kelly was appointed to the case a year and a half ago. Remember when he called David to the stand to basically harass him about how much Lunashark makes, claiming it was to demonstrate my ability to pay them if the judge ordered that, but I don't think it was. I believe from his questions that he wanted

Starting point is 00:38:53 to get proprietary information from David so Team Parker could feed it to the trolls and use any information they learned to harass us. But anyways, after my attorneys objected to Bannister's crazy questions, Judge Kelly ruled that this line of questioning wasn't necessary right then. He said it should wait until after a decision was made, after which a separate hearing would be held to determine my ability to pay if found in contempt, and more importantly, to inspect and argue the fees. But that hearing never happened. Judge Kelly just went straight to the punishment in a civil case. When I think about this, it is disgusting that I am not allowed to see how much Team Parker is trying to charge me for activities like, I don't know, making large binders of my social media speech

Starting point is 00:39:44 to what it looked like, maybe prejudiced the judge against me and distract him from the actual question in front of him? It's infuriating, actually, to think about how much they could be charging me for their unnecessary hotel bills in Spartanburg when they all lived within an easy driving distance. Might. Might be charging me because I don't know if they are actually charging me for it because I'm not allowed to know that. Remember how we overheard in the courthouse in April, Greg Parker's attorneys making comments about dinner being on Mandy. Again, I'm a non-party in this case. I am a journalist whose opinions Greg Parker and his attorneys do not like. They plucked me out of my regular life and threw me into this mess because

Starting point is 00:40:34 I had the audacity to challenge them and challenge the system for allowing them to do this. And dinner's on me? But I don't get to see what. where you went or how much it cost? Because I'm being punished for being scared that a man with a growing fixation on me and some sort of alliance with Parker's attorneys was threatening to come to my deposition? At the very same time, Parker's attorneys were refusing to do the thing that lawyers do every day and take my deposition at my attorney's office. It is sickening, and it's also absolutely unbelievable that Greg Parker's attorneys were allowed

Starting point is 00:41:13 to ask us about how much we make every year, how much we pay our people per episode, and how our Hulu deal came about. That's supposed to be fair? Again, this is why we motioned a quash the subpoena to begin with, because all of this all along felt like means to harass and extract proprietary information from us to feed to enemies of the truth. And what does that have to do with contempt? What does it have to do with?

Starting point is 00:41:43 how Greg Roman, the political operative, hired by Greg Parker to help minimize his damages in the boat crash case, how did he get photos of Mallory Beach's dead body? It is so easy to forget that that is what this is all about. And that's the point. They want the judge and the public focused on me and not on Greg Parker and definitely not on Greg Roman. They don't want people to remember that this is a case that's about their client, Greg Parker, allegedly using horrific tactics to emotionally injure Mallory Beach's family to scare them into settling the boat crash lawsuit. A case in which Greg Parker's attorneys are accused of concealing roughly $383,000 in payments, wired in 2020 to an Israeli spy security bot farm company called Demo Man International

Starting point is 00:42:35 for what the filing describes as litigation mitigation and allegedly failing to disqualing to disclose that in discovery. Greg Parker's co-defendants have been trying for over a year to depose Greg Roman and nothing. Oh, and it wasn't until the scheduling of Mandy's hearings when the attorneys for the co-defendants literally had to remind Judge Kelly that they have had a motion in front of him for months about Greg Roman, dodging service of his subpoena to be deposed over Zoom. Over Zoom. And he still won't do it and nothing has happened to the guy.

Starting point is 00:43:08 Yet, there were three hearings about Mandy's potential contempt for a deposition location dispute. I mean, Judge Kelly was lucky to be split. No delay in getting those docketed. Make that make sense. I'm sure, Mebbe will use these words against Mandy and their next motion to rile up the judge against her. But it's her First Amendment right to point this stuff out. Speaking of the First Amendment, we need to talk about how the order violated a journalist's First Amendment rights right after this break. Raise your hand if you're still wearing the same glasses you've had for three years because

Starting point is 00:43:50 replacing them feels like an unnecessary expense. I was that person, y'all. Scratches manageable. Loose screw, I overlooked that. Then I found Zinny and realized I had been dramatically overthinking this whole thing. I ordered a pair of prescription frames from Zinney, went online, picked out a style I actually loved, entered my prescription, customized my lenses, and they were right there at my door. The whole thing cost a fraction of of what I would have paid at a traditional optician. You just stop justifying the expense and start thinking about a work pair, a fun pair, and a pair for the beach.

Starting point is 00:44:26 Upgrade today with Zeni. Go to zenni.com slash podcast and use code podcast 15 for 15% off your first order plus free shipping on all U.S. orders over $65. These styles sell out, so don't sit on it. That's z-en-n-I.com slash podcast, promo code, Did any of you notice in Judge Kelly's order, again, written mostly by Mebby, that they mentioned Mandy's social media posts and commentary critical of the South Carolina judiciary as a reason to punish her?

Starting point is 00:45:08 Yeah, that's a violation of the First Amendment. And it either got past Judge Kelly or he didn't consider how that might be problematic. David, will you read our favorite part of this motion? By signaling out Ms. Matney's criticism of the Judiciary, and her commentary on matters of public concern to support the contempt finding and the sanctions. The court punished her, at least in part, for the content of what she said. That is presumptively unconstitutional, and the burden to justify the sanction is on the court. The order admits Ms. Matney, quote,

Starting point is 00:45:46 generally has a First Amendment right to state her opinions about this case, the parties and the court on social media and during her podcasts, end quote. Then it uses the very opinions, her criticism of Parker's defendant's attorneys and of the court's orders to reinforce the contempt finding, to judge her credibility and intent, to conclude she showed a, quote, lack of appropriate respect for the authority of the courts of this state, end quote, embedded in an order. that is a punishment for the content of protected speech. Ms. Matney's commentary is not private venting.

Starting point is 00:46:29 She is an investigative journalist and podcast host. Her reporting on the Beach v. Parker's cases, the Murdoch proceedings, and the conduct of the parties and counsel here concerns matters of plain public concern. And the First Amendment is at its strongest exactly there. See Snyder v. Phelps. The contradiction, protecting the speech and words while using it in substance, chills speech. When a court imposes a six-figure sanction on a non-party and then says her online commentary, quote, reinforced its conclusions and showed a, quote, lack of appropriate respect for the authority

Starting point is 00:47:11 of the courts, it tells Ms. Matney and every journalist and commentator that criticizing a proceeding can be used against them inside that proceeding. That is the content-based, viewpoint-based penalty the First Amendment forbids. The court's footnote 14 makes it worse. By quoting Chief Justice Kitcheridge's 2006, state of the judiciary address, condemning, quote,

Starting point is 00:47:41 half-truths and false narratives that circulate on social media, podcasts, and other outlets masquerading as journalism, attacking our justice system, end quote. The order pulls the chief justice's criticism of podcast journalism directly into its assessment of Ms. Matney. The court appears to equate the chief justice's comment with Ms. Matney's reporting, using the content of her journalism to support a contempt finding and sanctions is a content-based restriction, and it is presumptively unconstitutional.

Starting point is 00:48:19 The contradiction chills free speech. Did you hear that? Whistleblowers of South Carolina? Content creators, journalists, bloggers, any citizen who has ever used the internet to call out their government for wrongdoing or publicly questions the conduct of politicians, attorneys, and judges in cases of public interest? Or one who questions the fairness of a system that operates in the dark? You can be punished for that.

Starting point is 00:48:49 our government in South Carolina, and at the very same time that you're being told that you are not being punished for it. In the United States, we should never be punished by the government for expressing our opinions on how the system operates. Yet, I was, and it is very clear in this order. And by the way, Chief Justice Kittridge never mentioned me by name in his address, or my company. He was simply talking about podcasters. and people who criticize the South Carolina judiciary on social media. That is a lot of people. That's not just me.

Starting point is 00:49:27 And the justice's point was just to say that judges are in fact prohibited from responding to criticism, no matter how false or outrageous the allegations may be. And yet, it feels like Kelly did exactly that. And you know who did make the big leap to say that Justice Kittrich's, quote was specifically about me? John Monk of the state newspaper, the veteran reporter whose son was just charged with nine federal counts related to child sex abuse materials.

Starting point is 00:50:01 John Monk, the guy who erroneously reported that I said that I make things up for my podcast, the one who has written about my contempt hearings in a way that can only be described as having the energy and spite toward me of an angry ex-boyfriend. John Monk, the reporter who we are now wondering, uh, was he trying to impress former U.S. attorneys Deborah Barbier and Mark Moore by adopting their viewpoints on me and spreading them to the world? Were these unfactual and absurdly slanted articles a favor to get into the good graces of people in power? It is very interesting that John Monk made that leap in his reporting of Justice Kiddrich's address, connecting me to his words despite my name never

Starting point is 00:50:51 being mentioned, and him citing no sources that made that connection. And even more interesting was that this same leap was made by Greg Parker's attorneys in the order they wrote for Judge Kelly to sign off on. The fact is that nobody in the United States should ever be punished by their government for speaking out against it. And that's why this is important and why I feel like I have no choice but to keep fighting and speaking out about it. David, will you read the next part of my motion to reconsider? Using Ms. Matney's commentary, her public criticism of Parker's defendant's litigation conduct, their counsel, and the courts, as evidence of contemptuous intent is a content-based penalty on speech. It appears that,

Starting point is 00:51:41 in part, the court punished her not for what she did on March 27, but for what she said about the case and the judiciary. That is presumptively unconstitutional. See Ashcroft v. ACLU. To overcome that presumption, the court must first find that these statements constitute a clear and present danger to the administration of justice. See Wood v. Georgia. The fine's stated purpose, deterrence, and

Starting point is 00:52:11 quote, respect for the law, suggests that Ms. Matney's commentary about the court was a primary driving factor behind the sanction. Footnote 14 of the order quotes Chief Justice Kitteridge's 2006 state of the judiciary address, criticizing social media commentary, quote, masquerading as journalism. Bringing that address into the sanctions analysis

Starting point is 00:52:35 blurs the line between punishing conduct and punishing speech. The courts rely on. on protected speech was not appropriate evidence to weigh. Using protected expression as evidence of contemptuous intent violates the First Amendment no matter what the record shows. And a ruling built on that error is an abuse of discretion as a matter of law. See Fontaine v. Pites. Wild, right? Because again, nothing Mandy said on social media

Starting point is 00:53:05 about the process, the judge, or the lawyers was in violation of any order. for a judge to consider social media posts in an active case, he needs to first determine that the content of those posts are an immediate threat to the administration of justice. They weren't. And you know how I know that? Because my God, if they were, we never would have heard the end of it in court. Now, let's talk about what Mandy's motion to reconsider says about the whopping $176,000 penalty. First off, the motion argues lawyers sees, which again, Mandy can't dispute or even see how they came up with them,

Starting point is 00:53:39 are technically fines in this case, excessive fines, which violates the Eighth Amendment and the South Carolina Constitution. Here's what the motion says about that, David. The total sanction, $176,500 made up of the $5,000 fine and the $171,500 fee award imposed on a non-party witness for missing one deposition that went forward prior to the court issuing the rule to show cause is a, quote, fine, subject to excessive fines review. We are arguing that the sanction is grossly disproportionate to the offense, which brings us to a really important part of this motion.

Starting point is 00:54:28 The part where we put all of this into perspective for the judge, but more importantly, the appellate courts, And even though we have been talking about this for months now, it's always mind-blowing to see it as black and white as it is in this court filing. David? The offense is a non-party witness's failure to appear at one deposition location on one day. The deposition went forward 11 days later on April 8, 26, at the Spartanburg County Courthouse, as the court directed. No party lost Ms. Matney's testimony's testimony. testimony, no trial was delayed, no case dispositive right was lost. At most, the discovery

Starting point is 00:55:12 schedule slipped briefly, and any sanction imposed on Ms. Matney must be related to reimbursing defendants for their reasonable cost incurred on the date of the missed deposition and on April 7, 2026 during the hearing, which ensured that the deposition would proceed forward on April 8, 2006. Reasonable attorney's fees would not have included motions practice unless there is a specific finding of bad faith. Such reasonable expenses would have ended once Ms. Matney appeared for a deposition on April 8, 26. Now, again, think about Greg Roman. The man at the center of this lawsuit who has not showed up to multiple depositions. Think about how much he has delayed this case. Think about about how much Judge Kelly could charge him and attorney's fees for all the messes he has caused

Starting point is 00:56:07 in this case if the rules remotely applied to him. Also, reasonable expenses, in our opinions, would have ended on April 8th as soon as Mandy's deposition was complete. If any of this was even a tiny bit fair, Mandy would only be charged for attorney's fees related to her deposition between March 27th, the day of the original deposition and April 8th. The period of time when Parker's attorneys refused to even respond to emails from Mandy's attorneys offering up a number of locations. And that brings us to what exactly was Mandy being charged for to get them to land on $171,500, which is more than the cost of a 2006 range rover. We don't know, because again, she's not allowed to see the breakdown. But the order indicates that the total includes costs

Starting point is 00:56:52 they spent on responding to her motions to quash and reconsider, filed well before her deposition as a matter of right to ask the court to look at her arguments against being deposed in the first place. Like, you know, the fact that she's a journalist and the fact that this has not been reasonably calculated to be held in the first place. David, will you read from the motion? A $176,500 sanction is not related to reimbursing defendants for the time they set aside on March 27, 26 to conduct Ms. Matney's deposition.

Starting point is 00:57:28 $176,500 is not a re-eastern. reasonable indemnification to defendants for instituting the contempt proceeding. And a $176,500 sanction for missing a deposition has no rational relationship to the gravity of missing a deposition. Ms. Matney's sanction dwarfs the statutory maximum for stalking, simple assault, obstruction of justice, and trespass. To put this in perspective, the monetary sanction. For Ms. Matney, in this case, is more than seven times the maximum statutory fine for felony DUI resulting in death. A non-parties dispute over a deposition location causing no lasting loss to anyone cannot justify a sanction of this size. Like I said in part two of last week's episode, the state of South Carolina, find me more than they did Elyke Murdoch, Corey Fleming, and Becky Hill.

Starting point is 00:58:29 But again, Ehrlich Murdoch. Now, we have to chat about this $5,000 fine specifically and how it's punitive, not coercive, and it can't be purged with compliance, which is what a civil contempt fine is meant to do. Here's David with the motion. This is a punitive fine, and the label on the proceeding does not change it.

Starting point is 00:58:52 What matters is whether the person held in contempt keeps the keys to her own punishment, a coercive civil sanction, the kind the excessive fines clause does not reach, is one the contemner can end by obeying the order, see Gompers v. Bucks. A fine meant to punish, to vindicate the court's authority or to deter, one no act of compliance can lift, is different, and the Eighth Amendment applies. See Poston v. Poston. A fine paid to the court to deter and to promote respect for the law, is punitive, and the $5,000 fine fails on both counts. It is payable to the court, not to Parker's

Starting point is 00:59:36 defendants. Nothing Ms. Matney can do will purge it. There is nothing left to purge. She sat for her deposition on April 8, 26, as the order itself acknowledges. When the underlying obligation is already done, a fine with no purge provision cannot coerce anything. It can only punish. Again, this speaks to the civil contempt-first criminal contempt aspect of this. I was found in civil contempt, but punished as if I were guilty of criminal contempt. I never held the keys to my own freedom from this after April 8th when I did what was asked of me. Meaning, there was literally nothing I could do to make things better after I had already sat for the deposition. The purpose of a civil contempt penalty is to repair the issue in dispute.

Starting point is 01:00:29 It was already repaired. The $5,000 fine on top of all of this is simply, in my opinion, for the message that it sends. A message to warn against women who stand up for their safety in this state. A message to warn against journalists who dare to speak out about the corruption in our justice system. And again, why should I be required to pay $100,000? $71,000 in lawyer fees for contempt hearings Greg Parker's attorneys electively and absurdly pushed for after they had gotten my deposition. I never wanted or asked for any of it. I never had an opt-out button or a way to fix it beyond sitting for the deposition, which again, I did. And in the meantime,

Starting point is 01:01:18 they just merrily racked up attorney fees and cost to the tune of the time. of $310,000. Because their client, Greg Parker let them. And because, like we've said all along, the deposition was never the goal. In my opinion, harassing me was, proving a point to me was, showing me who's in power of the South Carolina courtroom was the goal. And I guess, that's Greg Parker.

Starting point is 01:01:49 It's all egregious and so difficult to understand. how it was allowed to go this far with this many heirs and contradictions. As my motion says, it is hard to believe that such fees are reasonable for a deposition that went forward 11 days later. And we will be right back. Raise your hand if you're still wearing the same glasses you've had for three years because replacing them feels like an unnecessary expense. I was that person, y'all.

Starting point is 01:02:23 Scratches manageable. Loose screw? I overlooked that. Then I found Zinni and realized I had been dramatically overthinking this whole thing. I ordered a pair of prescription frames from Zinni, went online, picked out a style I actually loved, entered my prescription, customized my lenses, and they were right there at my door. The whole thing cost a fraction of what I would have paid at a traditional optician. You just stop justifying the expense and start thinking about a work pair, a friend pair, and a pair for the beach. Upgrade today with Zeni.

Starting point is 01:02:56 Go to Zeni.com slash podcast and use code podcast 15 for 15% off your first order plus free shipping on all U.S. orders over $65. These styles sell out, so don't sit on it. That's ZENNI.com slash podcast. promo code podcast 15. In Toronto, every arrival is a statement and nothing says it better than this. Cadillac Optic was the number one selling luxury EV in Canada for 2025. Find your rhythm across a seamless 33-inch display and an immersive 19-speaker AKG surround audio system. This city demands agility and optic delivers with precision to make every drive extraordinary.

Starting point is 01:03:36 Let's take the Cadillac. Find out more at Cadillac Canada.ca. Luxury sales claim based on S&P Global Mobility Canadian New Vehicle Total Registrations for calendar year 2025 for the Cadillac definition of luxury. Even more egregious is that Greg Parker's attorneys originally asked Kelly for 310,500. $33.39. And Judge Kelly has offered no explanation for why he reduced that by 44.7%. I think it's important to know his thinking on that because otherwise it appears arbitrary and almost like he's trying to make things look less worse for Parker's attorneys, or maybe to make it look like he's not doing the thing here that seems plain as day to everyone paying attention. And that's allowing his

Starting point is 01:04:28 courtroom to be used for pageantry grandstanding and retaliation. retaliation against a reporter. And wait, hold on. On this week's Cup of Justice, we talked to Lamont McIntyre and exonerie who spent 23 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Lamont told us about the Centurion Ministries, and that's the organization that ultimately helped free him. According to Centurion Ministries, it takes an estimated eight to ten years of work and $350,000 to free an innocent person, and that includes paying attorneys, investigators, and experts. It's incredible. And I have to say it again, $350,000 for eight to 10 years of work. Not three months of pursuing a reporter whose opinions you don't like for $310,000?

Starting point is 01:05:17 Greg Parker's four attorneys are claiming that they spent close to the amount of money it takes to free an innocent person from prison on a deposition that they got 11 days later. her, a deposition that did not lead to a single fact that ended up getting used in their motion for summary judgment. I mean, what? Though Mandy and her attorneys can't see the breakdown of where those fees came from, Judge Kelly's order indicates that they're making Mandy pay for the time they spent responding to her motions that were filed again as a matter of right and that were never moved by Parker's attorneys for Rule 11 sanctions, meaning the court and Parker's attorneys all saw those motions as being legitimately filed until this, and now she's being charged for that. David, can you tell us what the motion says about that?

Starting point is 01:06:05 The court never told Ms. Matney her motions were being weighed for sanctions under any independent authority. She never had a chance to answer that charge before the award issued. The steps, Rule 11 requires a noticed motion, a finding of frivolousness, and a chance to respond, were skipped by running the sanction through the contempt power instead. That skips both Rule 11 and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which independently requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court imposes financial penalty for litigation conduct. Interesting. More skipping.

Starting point is 01:06:47 More steps required by the law were apparently skipped in this case so Greg Parker, the billionaire, could get what he wanted, to punish me, even though the route that they chose to do that, civil contempt, does not allow for punishment. It is so surreal that this is the reality right now. I know that I shouldn't be shocked by this because I've spent years showing y'all how this system is corrupted by good old boys and people who can pay their way through a different door to the courtroom. But it is still shocking. As Lamont McIntyre told us this week in Cup of Justice, the only way out of hell is through it, and I'm probably going to need y'all to remind me of that as we go through it. So, in this motion,

Starting point is 01:07:38 what we are asking for is for Judge R. Keith Kelly to vacate the contempt order and the fee and the fine, or at least reduce the fee and limit it to bills related to the missed must March 27th deposition and nothing after April 8th, when I no longer held the keys to my freedom from this. We understand that we have a slim chance of ever getting Judge R. Keith Kelly to agree with us on literally anything, because that's what the pattern has been with him so far, not a single inch given to us. But one thing from the motion to reconsider, I really want y'all to know about. David? Additionally, if Ms. Matney has provided a proper procedure in which to argue that the award of attorney's fees was improper, Ms. Matney reserves the right to argue that recusal is appropriate

Starting point is 01:08:34 due to the fact that this court has prejudged the amount of attorney's fees it sees appropriate in this case. Ms. Matney would argue that she would have the right to raise such an issue if and when she reviews the documents which have been sealed and determines that this court has aired. Judge Kelly has already said the fee that he ruled on was A-OK, so we reserve the right to argue his recusal if he does give us a hearing. As it stands now, Parker's attorneys have two weeks to respond to my motion to reconsider, which, yay, more money they are spending on this. In the meantime, we're getting charged $50 a day and interest on the $171,500 sanction because Judge Kelly refuses to hold the judgment and abeyance until after the appeals process. Lunashark has asked the court for permission to deposit the full amount in the care of the Hampton County Clerk of Court to hold the money in good faith while we appeal Judge Kelly's decisions.

Starting point is 01:09:43 And Greg Parker's attorneys have already indicated that they won't agree to that, because of course they won't. This was never about anything other than trying to intimidate me into silence, in my opinion. And the more that they continue to prolong their fight against me, the more obvious it should be to the court that this is retaliatory and personal. And, again, in my opinion, all about punishing me through absurd billing. to bury me and Luna Shark and bills until we are done. They got my deposition back in April. They got their finding of contempt. Now it's just sport for them.

Starting point is 01:10:27 But the more they dig in, the more they expose how broken this system is. The more they prove my years of painstaking reporting to be right. No one from our side saw this coming because to predict this, you would have to predict a number of due process violations in a punishment that was never a possibility, according to the law. But one person did see this coming, Jim Seidel, the felon who harassed me for months and threatened to show up at my deposition.

Starting point is 01:11:01 On March 27th, soon after the deadline passed for Greg Parker's attorneys to come to their senses and meet me at a location where I felt safe knowing that it was stocker-free, Jim Seidel posted an AI photo of himself drinking a margarita outside of a Parker's gas station. David, sorry to do this to you, but will you read his caption?

Starting point is 01:11:25 Watching someone lose their ever-loving mind from a meme, then watch them think it's funny to play games with a South Carolina court, only to be watching from hundreds of miles away, as they'll likely get fined, sanctioned and pay high prices, attorney fees, and expenses, all because they think they're untouchable. And to think, all I did was go fishing today. Drink up, Johnny. Hashtag Margarita. Hashtag crime and cask. Hashtag Parker's Kitchen. Hashtag I have the power. Hashtag, living rent-free in your head.

Starting point is 01:12:06 Bind. Sanctioned and pay high-price attorney fees and expenses, the felon said, with the hashtag I have the power. How did this felon, who seems to be wrong about literally everything when it comes to the justice system, how did he predict my punishment? I want to play this clip from Jim Seidel about his own alleged communications with Judge R. Keith Kelly from March 17, 2026. By the way, I do have an old message here from Judge Kelly. an old case, this Evan Hawthorne case, where I thanked him, and he responded and said, thank you for the kind words, that I am welcome in any courtroom in which he is presiding. Huh. Again, we spoke to a number of South Carolina attorneys on the week of my deposition,

Starting point is 01:12:59 who said at most we would have to pay for the court reporter fees in maybe a few hours of Mark Moore's time. since, from what I saw, he was the only attorney actually at the deposition location that day. Debbie wasn't even there. She was at Greg Parker's home or office. It was weird. Anyways, when I saw Jim Seidel's post on that day, I thought that it would work in my favor. I thought Judge R. Keith Kelly would see what my lawyers and I saw. An unhinged man with a dangerous fixation communicating with Greg

Starting point is 01:13:35 Parker's attorneys about confidential information related to my deposition in a way that would make any woman feel unsafe. But, turns out, I was wrong. The court did everything Jim Seidel said that it would, which makes you really stop and think, who has the power here? 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 Pharrell. 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.

Murdaugh Murders Podcast - Was Mandy Matney Punished By The Court For Speaking Out Against The SC Judiciary? TSP #159 [Part One]

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.