Blake Lively’s OFFENSIVE Fees Demand, Threat from Brian Hooker Resurfaces, and the UK’s Horrific Rape Gangs, with Jade Warwick

Summary

MK True Crime: Blake Lively’s OFFENSIVE Fees Demand, Threat from Brian Hooker Resurfaces, and the UK’s Horrific Rape Gangs, with Jade Warwick

Date: July 3, 2026
Hosts: Matt Murphy (former homicide prosecutor, author), Mark Geragos (criminal defense attorney)
Guest: Jade Warwick (British-American political commentator, host of The Warwick Report)

---

Overview

This episode dives into three major stories gripping the true crime and legal analysis world:

1. The controversy over Blake Lively’s demand for $8 million in attorney’s fees following an anti-SLAPP outcome in her litigation with Jason Baldoni.
2. The resurfacing of disturbing details about Brian Hooker, whose wife disappeared under suspicious circumstances in the Bahamas, relating to past domestic violence threats.
3. An in-depth exploration of the UK’s systemic rape/grooming gang crisis and the chilling barriers to justice, with on-the-ground insights from guest Jade Warwick.

The conversation is frank, legalistic, and sometimes darkly humorous, with a focus on the intersection of law, culture, and human behavior.

---

1. Blake Lively’s $8 Million Attorney’s Fees Demand (00:50–14:56)

Key Points & Insights

• Background of the Case: Blake Lively and Jason Baldoni engaged in litigation, with countersuits. Lively settled her case, but Baldoni’s was dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The remaining dispute: Lively’s lawyers are demanding $8 million in attorney’s fees.
• Legal Context:
  • California’s anti-SLAPP statute protects free speech; prevailing parties can recover attorney’s fees.
  • Judge Lyman, presiding, has already dismissed requests for damages and punitive damages—fees remain.
  • Mark Geragos and Matt Murphy are incredulous at the $8 million figure.

Notable Quotes

• “[This is] like a vampire movie where the thing will not friggin die.” – Matt Murphy (00:50)
• “I have never seen any anti-SLAPP fees award in the state of California that has broken a half a million dollars. The idea you would have the unmitigated gall to submit a bill to a federal judge...$8 million bucks is offensive.” – Mark Geragos (04:17)
• “At what point do you just burn all credibility with a federal judge? $8 million? … You probably spent a week or two working on that before submitting it.” – Matt Murphy (03:47)
• “The judge is not, I’m telling you right now, save the tape—he’s not giving $8 million bucks to Blake Lively or the lawyers in this case.” – Mark Geragos (05:22)

Discussion Highlights

• The hosts explain that “big law” firms sometimes inflate numbers to encourage a judge to “split the baby” and award a high midpoint, which both agree won’t work here. (06:04–06:49)
• Both critique the fee request as a strategic overreach that risks judicial patience and credibility.
• They discuss legal ethics—lawyers should sometimes say “no” to unreasonable client demands, especially high-profile ones.

---

2. Brian Hooker Threat Resurfaces (16:26–21:34)

Key Points & Insights

• Case Summary: Brian Hooker, with a notorious history in the Bahamas surrounding his wife’s disappearance, is under scrutiny again due to newly revealed court documents from an ex-wife, alleging threats and abuse.
• Legal Discussion:
  • California Evidence Code section 1109 allows prior acts of domestic violence to be admitted in some cases.
  • Hosts discuss challenges in bringing in such evidence when the direct witness (ex-wife) is deceased and the incidents are over 20 years old.
• Professional Experience:
  • Both hosts share experience with patterns of domestic abusers (“thumpers”, “chokers”), noting the consistent behavior across relationships.
  • Debate over the evidentiary balancing act: probative value versus prejudicial impact, especially with very old allegations.

Notable Quotes

• “I don’t think I have ever seen any anti-slapp fees award in the state of California that has broken a half a million dollars.” – Mark Geragos (04:17)
• “If it’s old enough to drink or it’s old enough to vote, it shouldn’t come [in as evidence].” – Mark Geragos (18:43)

Segment Timestamps

• Background & Legal Nuance: 16:26–21:34

---

3. UK Rape Gangs and Systemic Failures — With Jade Warwick (23:02–43:05)

Context & Setup (23:02–26:07)

• Introduction to Topic and Guest:
  • Jade Warwick shares her personal story—physically attacked by members of a rape gang in a “no-go zone,” denied help by UK police, and told perpetrators were “protected by Sharia law as asylum seekers” (25:06).
  • Host Matt Murphy underscores the extreme scale and media silence on the issue.

Key Insights & Discussion (26:07–43:05)

• Scale of Abuse:
  • Conservative estimates put victims of UK grooming/rape gangs at 250,000, with the real number likely far higher due to underreporting. (26:38)
• Systemic & Cultural Barriers:
  • Authorities often silenced or ignored claims for fear of being labeled “Islamophobic” or “racist.”
  • UK law criminalizes speech considered hate speech or Islamophobic, leading to self-censorship and lack of reporting by officials and victims.
• Failure of Institutions:
  • Health care, social workers, and police failed to act, allowing abuse. (33:09)
  • “The fear of racism accusation trumped their willingness to actually help the children.” – Jade Warwick (33:09)
• Personal Risk for Speaking Out:
  • Jade can’t return to the UK due to risk of prosecution for her public commentary; numerous cases have been opened by Scotland Yard over her videos. (36:21–41:16)
  • American speakers could theoretically also be prosecuted, especially if their speech gains traction.
• Political and Legal Climate:
  • Even reporting factual criticism related to cultural or religious elements can draw criminal charges under hate speech laws.
  • Notable example: Irish comedian Graham Linehan arrested at Heathrow for “offensive X posts,” and a man harassed for posting a picture of himself shooting at a range in the US. (38:46)
• Child Exploitation Details:
  • Many victims are from foster systems or state care, making them easy targets. (32:19)
  • Abuse is sometimes rationalized by perpetrators citing religious law or precedent.
• Broader Implications:
  • Discussion compares UK/EU approach to speech with America’s First Amendment, expressing disbelief at legal priorities that treat speech as a more serious crime than violence. (38:23)
  • Mark Geragos notes, “Speech is worse than action… incomprehensible.” (38:23)

Memorable Quotes

• “The perpetrators are mostly Pakistani Brits. So whenever a victim would go to the police, they’d say, ‘Well, you’re being Islamophobic or racist, so we don’t want to hear your claim.’” – Jade Warwick (25:06)
• “Speech is a far more serious crime than actual violence, which completely blows my mind.” – Jade Warwick (37:51)
• “This is one of those things...when you mix politics with prosecutorial power, you have a toxic cocktail every single time.” – Matt Murphy (28:49)

Notable Moments & Examples

• Jade recounts direct experience, and interviews with other victims, illustrating fear, apathy from authorities, and the chilling effect of hate speech laws.
• Hosts reflect on cultural/legal differences, expressing shock at the risks faced by whistleblowers and victims seeking justice.

Timestamps and Structure

• Introduction to Jade Warwick & UK Context: 23:02–26:07
• Personal Story & Systemic Challenges: 26:07–33:09
• Legal Risks of Speech; Notable Cases: 33:09–41:27
• Wrap-up & Thanks: 41:27–43:05

---

4. Reflections & “Story Time” (44:21–48:59)

Highlights

• “Green Worms in the Brain”:
  • Anecdote from Matt Murphy’s mentor on the enduring compulsion of serial sex offenders.
• Spectrum of Sex Crimes:
  • Legal nuance between less aggressive but technically qualifying acts and predatory repeat offenders.
• Cultural Touchpoints:
  • Mention of “Citizen Vigilante,” a viral film on rape gang vigilantism, sparking debate on justice, popular emotion, and the role of media. (48:20–48:49)

Memorable Quotes

• “He said…you’re in the world of green worms in the brain. Nobody knows how the green worms get in, nobody knows how to get the green worms out, but as long as they draw breath, the green worms are going to make them want to sexually abuse people.” – Matt Murphy (45:21)
• “Even a guy in a wheelchair, I guess from Rebecca’s perspective, still posed a danger.” – Matt Murphy (46:39)

---

Notable Quotes and Moments (with Timestamps)

• “I said it would not surprise me in the least if Judge Lyman slashed that [Blake Lively’s $8M fee request] to $80,000.” – Mark Geragos (02:05)
• “As long as you continue to draw breath, the green worms are going to make you want to continue to sexually abuse people.” – Matt Murphy (45:21)
• “For your American listeners—the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom is still very left wing…Speech is a far more serious crime than actual violence.” – Jade Warwick (37:51)

---

Conclusion

This episode covered a series of cases and issues at the intersection of law, culture, and morality—from Hollywood excess in legal billing, to domestic violence evidentiary standards, to society’s greatest failures in protecting vulnerable children. The in-depth discussion with Jade Warwick sheds crucial light on a horrific crisis in the UK, the silencing of victims and advocates alike, and the high societal cost of political and cultural taboos.

For further insights:

• Follow Jade Warwick as “The Warwick Report” on social media, or “@TheJadeWarwick” on X.
• Stay tuned to MK True Crime for ongoing legal breakdowns and international perspectives.

---

Transcript

[A]

Game day at my place is kind of a big deal. If I'm grilling, chillin and watching hoops, my outdoor patio setup better be ready to play. That's where Wayfair wins. From patio seating and umbrellas to grills and grilling accessories, Wayfair's got it all and it shows up fast. I'm talking championship level, fast and easy delivery. So level up your grill game and your outdoor chill game and head to Wayfair.com now to get your outdoor space ready for the season.

[B]

This is a Monday.com ad, the same Monday.com designed for every team. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one the same Monday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free.

[A]

Welcome to in the well. I'm Matt Murphy, former homicide prosecutor and author. And I'm joined by my co host and friend Mark Garagos, criminal defense attorney to the stars. And let's start with the Blake Lively case. Mark, this is like, this is like a vampire movie where the thing will not friggin die.

[C]

Except Matt, I'm gonna tell you something, Matt, and I hate to interrupt you, but I want, for those who might turn away saying I'm not interested in true crime, I turned in, I wanted to see DraftKings or I wanted the prediction markets. I'm gonna give you a lock in the prediction markets. So you want to set this up, Matt, because. Yeah.

[A]

So Blake Lively. So for those who who have been following the case, you already know, for those who are kind of on the periphery, there were two lawsuits in this. There was her lawsuit against Jason Baldoni and Jason Baldoni countersued her. Blake Lively settled in her case. And now the last like housekeeping matter is attorney's fees for his case, which was dismissed by the court under what's known in California as an anti slap. And Blake Lively is now demanding $8 million. So that's our. Let me tee that up for you.

[C]

Thanks. So those who are in the weeds, there is a section in California, it's called 47.1. Part of the settlement agreement was that they would carve out and they left for Judge Lyman to decide whether or not to assess damages and attorney's fees for Blake Lively's lawyers winning the anti slap. The judge already ruled they're not getting damages, they're not getting triple damages, they're not getting punitive damages. But he left for another day. And that day has already started to come the determination of whether they get their Attorney's fees. Now mind you, there was all kinds of scorched earth litigation on both sides. And so when he did that, him being Judge Lyman, in fact I was Matt talking with Greta Van Susteren this morning. You know Greta and Greta used to practice as a criminal defense lawyer in Washington D.C. and we were talking about Judge Lyman's dad, Arthur Lyman, who was a legal legend and the idea that his son who has already telegraphed kind of his impatience with this litigation in a lot of ways that they then came in, he said okay, let me see your fees bill. You and I did another show and we laughingly said they've requested $8 million. And I said it would not surprise me in the least if Judge Lyman slashed that to 80,000. And do you disagree the idea of doing an anti slap and asking for $8 million in this case?

[A]

Oh, I mean at what point do you just burn all credibility with a federal judge, mark? I mean $8 million, I mean this is something that this was a, there was a form response and of course the facts would have to be inserted. This is already on somebody's computer, I guarantee it. And they probably spent, you know, maybe a week or two working on that before submitting it to a federal judge. How do you justify $8 million in that, Mark? Like I don't.

[C]

So it looks like what they did was rather than parse it out for how much time was spent opposing what's called the counter, what you describe and accurately is the counter motion or the countersuit and doing it by way of an anti slap. No, they just throw in everything and they claim it's 8 million bucks. I have and I said this to you, Matt and I looked last night. You and I talked about this yesterday. I don't think I have ever seen any anti slap fees award in the state of California that has broken a half a million dollars. The idea that you would have the unmitigated gallery to submit a bill to a federal judge who has already expressed some misgivings about whether or not this is a violation of free speech and has already said and you've already stipulated there is no appeal. So back to my original statement. If you, if this becomes a question on the prediction markets, I'm going to give you a little unsolicited advice. You can always kick back some to me when you win the money. You, you should take the over and under anything under anything under a million bucks. And I don't know what the odds are that they give you take it and run because this judge Is not, I'm telling you right now, save the tape. He's not giving 8 million bucks to Blake Lively or the lawyers in this case.

[A]

So what do you think happens after that? Mark is if she gets awarded a dollar. Are they planning a big victory flag in that? I mean, it seems like it's, it's, they're gonna, they're gonna declare victory no matter what it is.

[C]

So, Matt, you've never practiced in big law. And I've had, I have the old expression, some of my big best friends are in big law. Big law calculation is this judge is gonna see 8 million. Baldoni's gonna come in and say it's worth about 50 cents. And they're hoping the judge, as a, as you know, they, they really underestimate the intelligence of this judge. I mean, they figure you'll never go broke underestimating the int. Southern District judge. But the fact remains, they think the midpoint is four million bucks or three and a half million bucks, that the mind goes there and that that's the midpoint and therefore he'll the proverbial Solomonic cut the baby in half. That's also not going to happen.

[A]

No way. Right. It's the middle ground fallacy. Right. The truth does not lie in the middle. Almost ever. Right.

[C]

Ever. In this case, mind you, the judge also is a sentient being. He's got neurons firing. He knows at a certain point that there's insurance companies that are standing behind this. And I don't know if Lively's lawyers are thinking, okay, there's a tower of insurance. We know what the insurance coverage is. Maybe there's a five million policy or a five million retention and maybe there's a two and a half million layer over that on the tower. Or maybe there's 5,5 million over that. And so we're going to try and leverage the insurance companies to maybe settle this or something. I just don't. It's incomprehensible to me. To your point, and you are, you articulated a lot quicker. Why would you burn your credibility at this point?

[A]

Yeah. I mean, maybe they just figured they got nothing to lose. They're never going to appear in front of this guy again. I don't know. Neither of us have ever practiced law that way. A lot of people do. Right. They ask for some outrageous number that they know isn't even close to what's right and hope that the judge. Yeah. Splits the baby and they get 10 times more than they're really entitled to. Right.

[C]

And I had this experience last week that I was in a mediation about a month ago, and it went nowhere. It was the world's worst mediator who will remain nameless. So it turned out because I was too reasonable coming out of the box, because I was doing the big firm on the other side. They interpreted that as, oh, he doesn't think much of his case. I mean, it's just. It. It just. That's the thinking. It's, oh, if you don't ask for nine or ten figures, you must not think much of your case. As opposed to, no, I don't want to sit here all day going in increments back and forth of $100,000.

[A]

It is so different from our world, Mark. And I've had. I have sat in a couple of mediation tours like that, and it's like the real mediating, the. It doesn't even start until you're about six hours into it and you start and you start talking real numbers. And I talked to a buddy of mine who's also a former DA who I know you've dealt with over the years. His name's Ed Flores. Great guy is. He's got his name in to go to the bench. Ed says that he walks after an hour in every. Every mediation. He will leave as soon as they start that because it's going to take you four hours before you even talk about realistic numbers. And just. It makes no sense to me. I don't get it. But they all seem to do it right. And these guys doing this in the Blake Lively case. I think it's a huge mistake. If I'm the judge in that. I'm, I'm. You recognize it exactly for what it is at the beginning, like you said. And I, I stick them with. With maybe 50 grand less than what I would have otherwise just for coming in demanding 8 million bucks. That's me. This, this judge maybe more judicious than I would be, but I would be. If I was him, I'd be so over this at this point. And you can see he knows exactly what's going on. He knows more than we do. And they're going to get. They're going to. I think they're going to get substantially less than what they want. And to be honest, I kind of hope they do so well, you do.

[C]

You immediately, if you understand what they are, the shenanigans that they are pulling here. It really is offensive because the law is clear in anti slap, you don't get all of your fees for time immemorial. The judge is supposed to and you're supposed to parse out what the fees, what the costs are that pertain to defending that counter motion you don't get. It's not like, oh, I just won the lottery, and I get to pay for my entire litigation. So that's the first offensive thing. Then to go back and forth with the judge, basically putting yourself into a box here where you're saying to him, okay, we want you to give punitive damages. No, we're not gonna do that. We want you to give damages. Judge says, no, I'm not gonna do that. And now you're just gonna throw 8 million up there? Do they think their clients are so stupid that the clients are gonna say, oh, you asked for 8 million. It must be the judge's fault that you didn't get the 8 million?

[A]

Yeah. You know, this is one of those things. I keep thinking that she and her ego have been driving this litigation. But you see some of the legal moves in this, and I don't want to criticize lawyers. I don't know. But it makes you wonder, doesn't it? Makes you wonder if they're just how much of it is her and how much of it is just some lawyering, for lack of a better word, that just makes me scratch my head. I don't know.

[C]

There are certain times. Look, there are certain maxims that. That. That lawyers should adhere to. One is you don't slam an ex client. And a lot of lawyers find that hard to do. If the client subs you out and you're bitter about it, or the client doesn't pay you and you have to withdraw. The natural kind of human reaction is to denigrate, and that's against your own, number one. Number two is this idea that you just do whatever the client tells you to do, and you kind of suspend any judgment. Clients hire a lawyer, and you know what? I've had it happen. You may have to tell a client, no, I'm not going to do that. And the client may fire you. That's fine. Understand your advice, your stock and trade is your time and advice. So why are you going to outsource that to just let the client do it? And as I always tell the client, if you were having brain surgery, would you want to stop? Say, hey, take me out of the anesthesia right now, and then tell the brain surgeon what to do? It makes no sense. You either do your due diligence going in, find out who your lawyer is, either trust their judgment, understand that they've got a plan and a strategy and you buy into it and listen to them.

[A]

Or.

[C]

Or you just find another lawyer who will. And I think, unfortunately, this would happen when lawyers just do whatever the client wants and it ends up in disaster. There's another case. And too bad I can't articulate it because it would denigrate an ex client of mine. But I know for a fact that the lawyer was doing what the client wanted and it ended in disaster. And it's unfortunate, but you see it right.

[A]

Well, with a list, celebrities especially, and probably nobody's defended more of them than you have, Mark, over the years. I think they live in these little bubbles where nobody ever tells them no. Right. They just, they. They're so used to that. But as a lawyer, I've got a. I put a provision in my retainer where I can fire them if they refuse to follow my advice. And I've done that a couple great times. It's like, great.

[C]

Cause I love that.

[A]

Yeah. It's like your judgment and decision making is what got you into this mess in the first place. We're going to use my objective to get you out of it. You don't get to keep making horrible decisions. And I don't know, I'd love to be a fly on the wall for some of these conversations that. That must be going back and forth. But I don't know. This case will be kind of soon.

[C]

I want to be a fly on the wall in the chambers of Judge Lyman as he's talking to his clerks. I want to hear what, you know, the Southern District is. Is a place in and of its own. And I can't imagine. I. Like I said, I've said before to you, I don't know this particular judge. I only know his paternal roots. But the idea, if you've read his orders in this case or his opinions or the transcripts, the idea that this is where. That after all of a year of scorched earth litigation, that this is your final coup de grace is to go out with kind of typewriter keys blazing in terms of your or your clio billing. Blazing makes. He's over. It's over it. Yeah. He's so over it.

[B]

Here's what happened. When one journalist reported on DEI programs.

[C]

I decided to just focus on the University of Michigan. I obtained internal documents that showed that the school had spent about a quarter of a billion dollars on DEI programs. I spent two weeks in Ann Arbor talking to everybody. I could find. The unintended consequences of these programs. They had sort of left everybody dissatisfied. And this expensive machinery, the School had built just imploded. If you're a journalist, you are not on anyone's team. All you're trying to do is figure out as many of the facts as you can gather. The facts are going to guide you to where the story lands. You're not taking sides. I'm Nick Confessori. I'm an investigations reporter for the New York Times.

[B]

Journalists like Nick follow the facts wherever they lead. They go where news breaks, get answers

[A]

firsthand and publish what they find.

[B]

That's fact based reporting.

[A]

Seek it out if you don't already.

[B]

You want to get your backyard summer ready, but you don't want to break the bank. Wayfair gets it. Planning on dining al fresco or relaxing poolside? Wayfair has everything you need to prep your space. Shop now and save up to 70% off during Wayfair's 4th of July clearance. Score huge deals on outdoor furniture, area rugs and more. We're talking thousands of products for every style and budget. Plus surprise flash deals. July 6th. Don't wait. Shop Wayfair's 4th of July clearance now through July 6th at Wayfair.com Wayfair Every style, every home.

[A]

So let's, let's comment real quick on this Brian Hooker thing. This is the guy with the yacht that everybody's been reading about that in the Bahamas. He's investigated by the Bahamian authorities after his, his wife disappeared. He came in with kind of a crazy story and just recently court documents from his ex wife were made public where he had a temporary restraining order issued against him where she articulated all kinds of different threats that he had made allegedly during the course of the relationship where he basically said, you know me, an accident may happen to you. That's all in court documents. But she actually passed away a couple years ago. This is really interesting, Mark, and I wanted to ask you about this. Anyway, in California for the viewer we have a thing called 1109 evidence, evidence code section 1109 that allows other instances of domestic violence to be introduced under the right circumstances in a pending case. As a homicide prosecutor, that's the kind of stuff that you want to see. If there's background on this and you've got a missing woman, especially in a no body case, that can be gold. But Mark, can they even lay the foundation if she's dead? There's no.

[C]

This is interesting for the legal kind of crosscards, as you know, for 1109 and then but before 1109, the standard 1101, which in California at least is a common scheme modus operandi, whatever you want to call it, the thing that would resonate or gain traction, that a prosecutor, in my opinion, I'd love to hear what you think. And that a judge would wrestle with is you may die from an accident. And then why? Because now you've got the claim of the defense is it was an accident, you know, oops, she fell off the boat. And look, you know, 20. What was this 21 years ago, 25 years ago when this happened? That is the counterweight to the fact that it would seem to be probative or at least go towards a common scheme. But as my old man used to say, I don't know how many times you've seen if it's old enough to drink or it's old enough to vote, it shouldn't come. So I can't tell you the number of times. And this one is. Is both old enough to drink, old enough to vote. And if it were a male, it would have a fully formed brain, because I think it's 25 years old.

[A]

So I wonder if. Yeah, so. So again, for the viewer, it's evidence code section 352, where a judge is supposed to analyze that and consider the probative value versus prejudicial effect. The prejudicial effect of that would be through the roof. The probative value for something that is 21 years old. Yeah, they might just keep that out. That's something that some federal prosecutor I envision sitting in a room right now trying to figure out if they get a shot of getting that sort of evidence in. But what's also interesting is it makes you wonder what else is out there, Right? Like, what else is in his background? Because we used to call them thumpers, Mark. Like the guys that.

[C]

That.

[A]

You got chokers, you got thumpers, you got guys that do. That seem to specialize in different forms of domestic abuse, and they don't really differentiate very much from a relationship to relationship. You can get five different women who don't know each other and have never met, and when you interview them in the course of investigation, the guy will have engaged in the same thing over and over again. But.

[C]

And it is uncanny how it's the same pattern.

[A]

Yeah, it really is. So. But I don't know. I think I'm with you on that. 21 years is a long time, especially when you have these other evidentiary complications, like, she's dead. I don't know if you could even lay the foundation for the complaints. Apparently there's two kids that are still alive. But they, I mean, they're adults now, but that, that there, there were vague allegations of abuse of the children. So maybe they can get it in. They could get something in if there's an eyewitness to some sort of domestic violence. But that's not in any of the court documents specifically.

[C]

They haven't put that in. And if it was abuse of the kids, my guess is a judge leans towards exclusion. If the kids were witnesses, percipient witnesses to the abuse of presumably their mother or the, the woman who has now passed away, then the judge is going to be on, I would think a judge is going to be on the fence. And it really becomes, is it a signature? Does it really give you or supply something that you wouldn't have otherwise? And can you somehow either sanitize the prejudicial effect or minimize the prejudicial effect? Because to your point, it doesn't get much more prejudicial.

[A]

No. This is going to be really interesting to see how this shakes out. And it looks like they're taking their time and analyzing it. They're continuing to work up probably all the equipment they can and her Apple Watch and all the other stuff we've heard about. So we will continue to cover this case. I think it's really interesting. So next we are joined by Jade Warwick. Jade is a British American political commentator and host of the Warwick Report and she joins us to discuss this independent rape gang inquiry out of the uk this is really, really interesting. It's, it's a huge deal in the UK right now, but American audiences aren't, I think, as, as tuned in. So please stay with us and we're going to come back with, I think, a very, very interesting guest.

[C]

Monday AI agents took over my work

[A]

and I absolutely love it.

[C]

Chasing deadlines, writing status reports, updating stakeholders.

[A]

Agents handle the daily grind. Now they live inside Monday.com, so they

[C]

see the full my work, my team,

[A]

the whole company and I don't have to worry about the data.

[C]

It's safe, which means I'm free to

[A]

focus on the big stuff. Knowing everything runs smoothly in the background. It's completely shifted the way we work. Create your own AI agent in minutes on Monday dot com.

[C]

Welcome back to in the well, joining us now is British American political commentator, host of the Warwick Report, Jade Warwick. Welcome, Jade. First, I was gonna have you tell us about yourself, but I want you to know this is our second week that Matt has got us on an international tour and I'm very happy about this because there's so many domestic cases we obsess with. And so he. I think the hooker case got him to be. And I'm not saying about a prostitute, but the name of the suspect is hooker. But bringing you in to give us a little bit of the Warwick perspective. Welcome and thank you for joining us.

[B]

Thank you so much for having me. I've been listening to you guys for

[A]

a while now, so this is really interesting, guys. So for our audience, I want to kind of do a broad overview here. There is a phenomenon, I can't call it anything else happening in the UK right now with this UK rape gang report that is unlike anything I've ever seen before. So Mark and I both have long backgrounds in sexual assault in courtrooms in California. My whole background is in usually with our clients. Yeah, I spent four years in sexual assault before I went to homicide and half of the cases I did in homicide were sex related. And I just submitted a transcript for my second book, which is the Analyzing Serial Killers from a Sexual Assault Perspective. So I started reading about this, Jade, and I was absolutely blown away. Almost nobody is talking about this here in the us. My grandmother's from Leeds too, which is Yorkshire. I know you're from Wales, but I got some roots in the UK and of course the rest of my jeans are all Irish. What in God's name is happening in your, I guess, former country? You're a uk, you're here now in the us Right, but what is going on with these grooming gangs and the rape gangs? Give us an overview.

[B]

Well, yeah, thank you so much for having me. And just a little background. I'm Jade Warwick, I'm a British American commentator. I left the UK about 10 years ago actually to do with the rape gang inquiry because I got attacked physically, not sexually, by a group of these men. And when I went to the police, they told me I shouldn't have been in that area because it's a no go zone and, and the perpetrators are protected by what they call Sharia law as an asylum seeker. And so I was just pushed away and I felt like my own country had abandoned me. So I, I sought after freedom and the right to protect myself. And so I ended up in America and unfortunately we're seeing systemic racism within the United Kingdom and the perpetrators are mostly Pakistani Brits. So whenever a victim would go to the police, they'd say, well, you're being Islamophobic or racist, so we don't want to hear your claim.

[A]

So, Rishi Sousnak. I'm sorry, Sunak who's the former Prime Minister of the UK before Keir Starmer, he said after he came into power and they started looking into this phenomenon of rap gangs, that political correctness had essentially failed the victims. And just to give our audience an idea, in this rape gang's report that's recently been released, what are the numbers that they. That they're talking about as far as number of victims that have been subjected to this?

[B]

So a conservative valuation is 250,000. But many people who are involved in, you know, the legal and policing system believe that it is far more. And, you know, statistically, is it one out of three sexual assaults actually get reported? So we're probably looking at a much higher number.

[A]

So what are the interesting. Yeah, sorry, go ahead, Mark.

[C]

Say I. I got introduced to this in the most backwards way. There's a recent movie that is out and the trailer is kind of gone viral with somebody who is a vigilante a lot character. Yeah, yeah. Can you describe. And that was out of Germany, but if I'm not mistaken. But this apparently. I mean, can you give a little color as to what actually we're talking about? Because I did a deep dive on it after I saw that, because I was. I said, this can't be right. This can't be true. And then I'll let you articulate it.

[B]

No, of course. And thank you for bringing that up. Yeah. Without Elon Musk buying X, most people wouldn't even have heard of the movie. And he made it free for, I think, 48 hours. The movie touches upon real cases, true stories, and the failures in Europe. I believe that Europe is crumbling due to this mass migration and soar in assaults on women. So the movie, I think the scene you're talking about, he goes after the perpetrators of a gang rape. And. And I mean, I'm pretty sure everyone's seen it by now, but spoiler alert. He's a vigilante. He goes and kills everyone.

[C]

Yes. Yeah. Spoiler alert. He calls or has the people call over every member of the gang. And it does not end well for the gang. But it's astonishing. It's catnip, I suppose, and it kind of. It's titillating in a weird sense, but it does get your attention and it did get you thinking. To your point.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You know, there's a judge. Sorry, Jay, go ahead.

[B]

No, no, you carry on.

[A]

Yeah. So there's a judge that Mark and I both appeared in front of many times, especially me. His name's Greg Jones. He's a Former Republic defender, lifelong Democrat and one of the best people I know, actually. Fantastic judge. And he used to say whenever you mix politics with prosecutorial power, you have a toxic cocktail every single time. So this is one of those things. One of my big interests in this is that when we're talking about politics and the protection of children and a lot of these victims are between 12 and 16, this really should be above politics, it should be above ideology. It's the state's responsibility to protect especially our children. And when you have this systematic, organized sexual abuse of children, I don't think we've seen anything like this in the U.S. mark, how are we like?

[C]

Well, to Jade's point, I'd love to hear it. Jade, can you speak to the Sharia law aspect of this? Because there was some bubbling up of this in Texas a couple of years ago and I think this is for a legal, nominally legal audience. It's interesting.

[B]

Yes, of course. And I do have to correct you, unfortunately, some of the victims were as young as 11, and in other cases which are related to this report, they were even younger. So it's just horrific to think about. And yes, it shouldn't be political, it should be based on morals. Morals being we should not be assaulting children. I don't know why that's so difficult for the British government to comprehend. But in Sharia law, I mean, the basis of it is Muhammad and Aisha were a couple and, you know, she was considerably underage and he wed her and consummated it around those same ages. So, you know, the Islamic scholars, they like to say, well, it's part of our religion. You know, if she has met sexual maturity, we should be able to marry her. And this happens in Iraq, Afghanistan, places in the Middle east that are governed by Sharia law.

[C]

Yeah. And this is not something that's new. Matt's heard me talk about the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Turks. The Ottoman turks back in 1915 through 1923. This was a kind of a method or an operation of subjugation. And it's awful. And the idea that 12 year olds and 11 year olds are being. And it's not so you understand, this is not just in the main a situation where somebody gets married off. I mean, that's horrible enough. A lot of these are violent, just horrific attacks, I mean, that are, that are, that are kind of sadistically in a, in the most awful terms possible as to what they do to these people, it's just awful.

[A]

Well, it's also one of the things I read is that the, a lot of these victims, Jade, it appears that they're in essentially what we would call foster care or they're in state homes and they're, you know, sex crimes. As Mark and I have seen over and over again, they tend to prey on the most vulnerable victims always. And it seems like a really high proportion of these children are in state care. Is that what you've seen?

[B]

Yes, that's correct. And of course, you know, these evil people are going to target children that don't have a strong family system or a, you know, support system around them. So these kids, and I can speak from experience because I had to go into some sort of like foster care in my teenage years, they are abandoned by the system. You know, you have like weekly check ins. Everything good? Yeah, cool. But that's about it. And even if you bring up a problem, nothing really gets addressed.

[A]

So what's the deal? People are reporting it and they're not getting into the cultural aspect of it systemically. What can be done different? What are these reports pointing towards as far as addressing this problem on such a huge scale?

[B]

Well, so you had the nhs, which is our health care system, social workers, teachers and other people in positions of authority that, you know, heard the claims from these victims, but instead of reporting them and acting on them, the fear of racism accusation trumped their willingness to actually help the children. So in the UK we have several laws that will criminalize free speech and will criminalize hate speech. And if something is considered Islamophobic or offensive to Muslims or Middle Easterners, you know, you can actually go to jail, you can go to prison for that.

[C]

Yeah, it's, it's mind boggling. Europe does have this, you know, I mentioned the Armenian genocide. France for a while criminalized the denial of the genocide. And as much as I like that, theoretically, it's also, it's abhorrent if you're a free speech absolutist. And this problem is it shows the real harm that it does because Jade, if I'm not mistaken, as I understand it, even the accusation you are, you're kind of is pushed back again. You can't even make the accusation without it being framed as racist, sexist or anti, anti Muslim. And that to me is just mind boggling. That's like the opposite of the MeToo era in some ways. It's kind of a, it's a perversion and it's speech that, where, where speech has supplanted what the act is and the act is evil. And it makes zero sense.

[A]

And by the way, if Mark and I, if we could be jailed for offending people, I don't think I would have made it.

[C]

I wouldn't have gotten out of. I wouldn't have gotten out of 8th GR. But to Jade's point, Jade, you've told some stories based on what I saw. Can you give a couple examples of some of these real life situations where you've interviewed the people and their experience?

[B]

Yeah. So, I mean, I was definitely one of the victims to a smaller extent, but I had spoken to several girls in my school, in our high school, and we very much feared walking home a specific way, even though it was the shorter way back to our homes, because we would go through an area which was considered a no go zone, and it was where the government was housing migrants, especially from many countries, which is Middle Eastern, North African. And I know of one girl who was sexually assaulted and she doesn't want to talk about it even to this day. And that's. I respect that. But it's unfortunate. Yeah.

[A]

If you go online to address something like that, like if you lived in the U.K. still, Jade, and you actually wrote something or did a podcast within the UK where you say some of these things, you criticize a group, you say there's a cultural element that, of course, could be offensive to any religious group. Are you actually in fear that you might run afoul of criminal law?

[B]

No, of course. So there are. Yeah, there are several laws that criminalize speech, and I've broken almost all of them being in America. And I do risk prison time if I go back to the United Kingdom. So I haven't actually seen my family in many years now due to me speaking out from America, they would not treat me as an American citizen. You know, with my First Amendment protections, they would treat me as a British national. Um, so I would potentially go to prison for a very long time. Um, Tommy Robinson also was jailed several times when he was reporting on the initial trials of the grooming gangs.

[A]

Yeah, I just. I just read a thing. Check this out. They. They had. One of these guys got convicted. He's 74 years old. So this is not like. This is not a conspiracy theory to our viewers. These. A lot of these have been adjudicated. There's been these. These grooming gangs, these organized sexual abuse groups. One of these guys got out. He's got Pakistani and British citizenship. His British citizenship was taken away in 2012. Jade, you probably know what I'm talking about. He just got released. His victims are all Saying they're worried about their own safety and they won't deport him back to his country of origin, even though he's no longer a British citizen. But if you go home, you're actually there. He is. Wow. You have to worry about being arrested because of some of the things that you've said in the United States, is that right?

[B]

Yes. Under the Labour government, who are in charge of the United Kingdom right now, speech is a far more serious crime than actual violence, which completely blows my mind. And for your American listeners, the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom is still very left wing, so Conservatives and Labors are on the left side of the spectrum. And then you have reform and restore on the right side of the spectrum. And I will only go back to the UK if reform or restore have power.

[C]

And you articulated exactly a lot better than I did. The idea that speech is worse than action is something that for a lot of us is incomprehensible. But that's exactly what you're describing.

[A]

Wasn't there some comedian, Jade, if I'm not mistaken, that that took some shots of himself at a gun range and he got arrested in the uk?

[B]

No. No stories. Yeah. So the comedian is Graham Linehan. He was arrested at London Heathrow for three offensive ex posts. And, you know, he. He was the writer of Father Ted, a very funny man. But he's an Irish citizen that was posting from the United States, so he wasn't even a Brit in the United Kingdom, completely separate. But he got arrested upon landing. And then the firearm incident you're talking about was, forgive me, I forgot his name. But for his 50th birthday, he came to Florida and did the most American thing you can do. Go to a range. And he fired some firearms, had a great time, posted a picture on Facebook upon arrival in the United Kingdom, found out that he had broken some laws because he had offended people by posting a photo firearm. And for years following that, he has been harassed by the government, he's been harassed by police. Members of his family were called in for questioning even though they weren't there. But posting an image of a firearm was considered offensive.

[A]

It's like, this is so unbelievable from an American mindset. So this guy. I didn't know that the comedian was Irish, so. And not, like, from Northern Ireland, but actually the Republic of Ireland. Is that right? So he's.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

So he's a foreign national, just like Mark or I would be. So are you saying I should curtail my travel plans to the uk? Like, could we actually be Arrested in the uk I guess we could right for saying the wrong thing or saying something offensive. And Mark and I tend to stay out of politics. We talk about crime and legal matters, but, you know, all things lead to politics eventually and there's certainly crossover. Would Americans actually run the risk of being arrested in the uk?

[B]

So it depends on if your case has been brought to contest, which is the British law. It's not really a law, but it's where they consider if your case actually is hate speech. And then they'll do a full investigation into your online profile. They'll see what you said. They will consider it to be grossly offensive or not, and go from there. For example, I think I have 14 cases or something ridiculous like that at Scotland Yard because a lot of my videos got millions of views where I said some things that were rather offensive to Brits and Pakistanis in the United Kingdom. Even though it was factually accurate, it was rather offensive.

[C]

Well, Jade, I'm not trying to add a 15th case, but what kind of things opens a case in the uk? What do you have to say to open a case?

[B]

So let's say, for example, you make a video and you say, I think due to Barka Bazi and Muslim men wanting to cover women, I think that they're gay, that becomes hate speech. And let's say your video hits a million views, which mine went way over, that Muslims in the United Kingdom can be like, that was offensive. Let's contact contest and basically make a referral. And then you get investigated. And let's say that you announce that you're going to the UK if those victims then report to contests that you're coming, they could stop you at the border.

[C]

Wow, wow, wow.

[A]

And so full circle this has come back. That fear of making offensive statements has led to kind of either the intentional or unintentional suppression of marking the cultural aspects or the organized nature of some of these sex crimes. And it seems like it's gotten out of control. I have a lot to learn about this. I am so happy that you joined us and we would love to have you back on. I'd love to have you back on, Jay. Just to talk about. We don't have to talk about this. Love to talk about some of the juicy true crime cases that I've read about from the uk. I mean, UK is like the. It's almost like the Florida of Europe in my mind because there's so many juicy murder cases and crazy stuff. So we'd love to have you back. Thank you so much for joining us.

[C]

Thanks, Jade.

[B]

Thank you so much for having me. Thanks.

[C]

Where can the audience see you, Jade?

[B]

Yeah, on all social, I am the Warwick Report. Like Warwick Report. And on X I'm the Jade Warwick. So yeah.

[C]

Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next up, Matt and I go into one of our tales from in the well, which usually is kind of our version of can you top this? So stay tuned.

[B]

Choose to lean into it.

[A]

Every Mazda is engineered to give you effortless control.

[C]

I wake up Monday.comai agents took over

[A]

my work and I absolutely love it.

[C]

Chasing deadlines, writing status reports, updating stakeholders.

[A]

Agents handle the daily grind.

[C]

Now I stay in the loop only when it matters. Create your own AI agent in minutes

[A]

on Monday dot com. Welcome back to in the well, it is story time. Mark, hit me with, hit me with a good one.

[C]

Well, you know, on the break, we were talking to Natasha about my nickname for you, which is Sex King. And you could take that one way or another. But there used to be a DA here in LA that I used to call the Sex Queen because she was the prosecutor who prosecuted all the sex crimes. And you were clearly in Orange County. And it reminded me that story about the older when Jade was talking reminded me of the guy. And I've mentioned this before, and I swear it was out of your unit. And I remember him in a wheelchair in the Fullerton courthouse and one of the women in your unit was prosecuting him and he had either been castrated or he was paralyzed or something. And I actually asked her, I said, why are you doing this? And she said, because from above the neck, he's still as much of a pervert as he always was and something to that effect. And I think you remember this guy.

[A]

No, I remember seeing that guy in department five came in in a wheelchair and I can't remember if it was Rebecca that had it. Rebecca Heinlein.

[C]

You know, it could have been, it

[A]

could have been one of my colleagues. And it was, you know, I talk about this one in my book, Marc, and you know, this guy Ted Burnett. And I might have mentioned this on the show, but let me tell this one again. So my end of my first week in sexual assault after my I got my first caseload and I had about 40 cases on there. And I read through those and I thought that it could be nothing left in the world of human depravity after reading through those 40 files. And four years later, when I rotated out into homicide, I realized I just scratch the surface of human weirdness. But at the end of my first week, I went over to a buddy of mine named Ted Burnett and I'm like, ted, what's the deal with these guys? And he hit me with that line. He said, he goes, you are, you're in the world of green worms in the brain. He said, these guys, they have green worms in the brain. Nobody knows how the green worms get in, nobody knows sure how to get the green worms out, but as long as they continue to draw breath, the green worms are going to make them want to continue to sexually abuse people. And that, that philosophy, really, it's interesting because he's not wrong. The question is how much of a danger they continue to pose. And even a guy in a wheelchair, I guess from Rebecca's perspective, still posed a danger. And I don't remember the facts of that case.

[C]

Neither do I, except that I was always struck by her comment that from the neck up he was still a danger.

[A]

Yeah. And you know, these sex cases are, they really are on a spectrum, right? You, you can have that weird 18 year old who grabs the butts and boobs of his two 13 year old cousins in the back room at Thanksgiving and that is technically, that is a multiple victim molest. Right. But that's not the same thing as that predatory guy waiting in bathrooms or jumping out of bushes. Yet the same laws could theoretically apply to that guy. And that guy, technically, Mark could be open to multiple victim life enhancement. And you've seen those cases before, so have I, where you look at it with a rational mind and you think the law is about to come down too hard on this guy. And that does happen. But then of course, you know, it's designed for the real predators that are out there. And this, I'm really glad she came on with us because it's, I, what's happening in the UK is absolutely blowing my mind. I gotta, I got a lot more to educate myself on, but this is one that hopefully we can come back and I can continue to get your thoughts on it.

[C]

I couldn't agree with you more because the video that I mentioned, which was a clip from a movie and it was obviously designed to kind of get your attention or draw you into it. And I thought I was being bait and switched at first, but a little bit of research and it turned out that there is a legitimate issue here and I can't just reflexively dismiss it as kind of, you know, a Charles Bronson 2.0 or 3.0. So.

[A]

Yeah, well, and it's also striking a chord, right? Like that early 70s. The reason why the Mechanic and Death Wish and you know, the Dirty Harry movies were so popular in the early 70s, it was striking an emotional chord with people. And I think that movie, and for those who haven't, haven't heard of it, I love that Mark brought it up. It's called Citizen Vigilante and it has gone absolutely viral. And so with Armie Hammer, which means I guess he's been uncanceled too, apparently.

[C]

But he's out there canceling people left and right. So I guess.

[A]

Yeah, well, yeah, I downloaded that. I want to. I haven't watched it yet, but.

[C]

Okay, so I won't spoil it.

[A]

Yeah, don't spoil it for me. She started to, so I tried to cover my ears. All right, so thank you so much to our guest, Jade Warwick. Thanks to my co host Mark Ergos, as always and thanks to all of you, sincerely for two tuning in to in the well and I hope everybody has a fantastic fourth of July weekend.

[C]

Yeah, you too, Matt. Thank you.

[A]

Thanks, guys.

[C]

Bye. Bye. Ondeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team or bridging cash flow, gaps on Deck's loans up to $400,000. Make it happen fast. Rated A plus by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star trust pilot reviews, Ondeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes@ondeck. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.