← MK True Crime
MK True Crime
Shock Murder Mystery of Dentist and Wife, Kohberger Sister Speaks, and Conflicts of Interest in Tyler Robinson Case, with Viva Frei
00:58:15
MK True Crime hosts Phil Holloway and Dave Aronberg join the show to discuss the mysterious murder of Spencer and Monique Tepe in Columbus, Ohio, the surveillance footage of a person of interest that was released by police, why this looks like a “professional hit,” the lawyers discuss Nick Reiner’s fate ahead of his arraignment, whether or not the death penalty will be on the table, Bryan Kohberger’s sister finally speaks about the days leading up to his arrest, former litigator and Rumble creator Viva Frei joins the show to discuss Maduro’s indictment, whether he and his wife will face state charges in Florida, whether there is a conflict of interest in the Tyler Robinson prosecution team, and more. Phil Holloway: https://x.com/PhilHollowayEsq Dave Aronberg: https://davearonberglaw.com Viva Frei: https://rumble.com/user/vivafrei Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold Cozy Earth: Visit https://www.CozyEarth.com/MEGYN& Use code MEGYN for up to 20% off...
Loading summary
Transcript114 lines
- [00:01]
A
My name is Special Agent Rebecca Henderson.
- [00:03]
B
Thursday on NBC.
- [00:05]
A
There was an explosion at a top secret prison. Some of the most infamous killers broke free.
- [00:10]
C
The hunting party is back.
- [00:12]
D
We're going in loud.
- [00:12]
B
FPS the stakes have never been higher.
- [00:15]
A
The longer they're out there, the more.
- [00:16]
E
Dangerous they're gonna become.
- [00:18]
B
And the killers never seen anything like this before. Not even close.
- [00:22]
D
Have never been more twisted. This is Next Level.
- [00:25]
B
The Hunting Party.
- [00:26]
C
The thrilling season premiere Thursday on NBC.
- [00:30]
B
Well, the holidays have come and gone once again.
- [00:33]
A
But if you've forgotten to get that.
- [00:34]
D
Special someone in your life a gift.
- [00:36]
C
Well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday.
- [00:39]
B
Offer of half off unlimited wireless.
- [00:41]
A
So here's the idea.
- [00:42]
C
You get it now, you call it.
- [00:44]
B
An early present for next year.
- [00:45]
A
What do you have to lose?
- [00:47]
D
Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch limited time.
- [00:50]
E
50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required, $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabyte when network is busy see terms.
- [01:05]
B
Welcome to MK True Crime and Happy New Year. I'm Phil Holloway, your host today. I'm a criminal lawyer, I'm a former police officer and I have been in and around this justice system now for the better part of 40 years. This is our first show back for 2026 and we have a lot to get to. Here's what's on our true crime docket for today. We have a killer on the loose, apparently after a Columbus, Ohio couple was brutally murdered last week. We'll bring you the latest on that. Plus, Nick Reiner has been removed from suicide watch as he awaits his arraignment today. More on that. Plus, Bryan Kohberger is back in the news because his sister is finally speaking out. We'll share with you what she has revealed to the New York Times. Plus, on a very first event for this show, we are very excited to have former Canadian litigator and rumble creator Viva Fry joining us to discuss the indictment of ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. I'm joined today by my fellow MK True crime contributor and I should say maybe co host Dave Ehrenberg, also known as the Florida lawman. He's a former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, and he's the managing partner now at Dave Ehrenberg Law. In case you haven't noticed, our format is shifting slightly. So it will be just the two of us, two contributors at a time moving forward with even more exciting changes coming very soon. We're going to start as I said today with this tragic murder of Spencer and Monique Tepe. They were found dead on Tuesday, December 30, after being gunned down in their home while their two young children were inside. And as of the taping of this show, no arrests have been made, although there is a video of a person of interest. Dave. Well, happy New Year, buddy. Great to all as to be with you as always. Sorry we have to start out on this kind of a topic, but look, let me just set this up a minute. These alleged murders, well I guess clearly they're murders. They are said to have occurred between 2am and 5am on Dec. 30. That's what the police are saying. Spencer and Monique Tepe, Spencer being a well known and well respected dentist in the Columbus, Ohio area, and his homemaker wife, Monique, they were shot inside their home. Spencer is said to have been shot multiple times. Monique, at least once. There's no forced entry observed. This of course suggests that the killer may have known something about the premises, maybe, maybe was invited, maybe was known to the victims. No gun was found, but there were nine millimeter shell casings found. And the children, ages one and four fortunately were unharmed. But they were found nevertheless inside this crime scene. And Dave, once again we've got police telling us that they would like the public to help with any videos, surveillance or ring doorbell videos, things of that nature. You've prosecuted a lot of cases and a lot of murders even. And I'm curious to get your take on this because you know, this is one that really could wind up being a, a forever mystery or it could be one that, that breaks wide open pretty quickly depending on what police find, if they find good video and stuff. What do you think, buddy?
- [04:31]
C
Bill, when you see a couple that has no known enemies that just seem like in love and they have two small kids and they're just gunned down in their home, obviously the first thing you think of is it a murder suicide, something we didn't know. But there was no gun found so it can't be a murder suicide. So this is a double homicide. And the fact that police are saying that the community has nothing to worry about, that there, there's no warning out there about an ongoing threat shows you that they think this is someone who had these bad motivations in mind, someone who knew them, there was no forced entry, came in there, killed them, they left the kids unharmed, who witnessed it, apparently were there, I mean just, just awful situation all around. Thankfully the kids though are unharmed and then left there is the video of someone, a person of interest, walking away very casually, not running. And so it is a mystery, but I would suspect that we will find answers. This is not like the 1970s where these killers come in the loose forever. Now everyone seems to be walking around with a tracker. That's their cell phone. Everyone has a ring doorbell. You can see things going on their everywhere. There's technology everywhere that can catch this person. So I think that it's just a matter of time.
- [05:43]
B
You know, for those of you who are listening to us on podcast, if you get a chance to check out the YouTube video, we're playing this video of the. What police are saying is a person of interest. And look, it's. It's one of these things where I'm looking at it right now just to describe for those of you who may be on podcast or on Sirius xm, this is just a nondescript person in a hoodie. It appears to be a male, although we can't say for sure, but that's what it looks like to me. And as some people have said, this could just be someone, you know, walking home from an area bar or out on some other business. We just don't know. It could be the killer or it could be nothing at all. We do have something, though, that will play well for podcast and Sirius XM. We have some 911 audio from Dr. Pepe's employer being one of the callers and then a friend. If we can go ahead and roll SOT1 and we can talk about that.
- [06:41]
C
Did you receive information that he may have been involved in an accident or. No, ma'.
- [06:48]
B
Am. I just know that he is the most, like, he is always on time.
- [06:51]
D
And he would contact us if there.
- [06:53]
B
Was any issues whatsoever. And.
- [06:58]
D
I just don't know how to say this.
- [06:59]
B
Like, we're very, very concerned because this.
- [07:01]
C
Is very out of character and we.
- [07:03]
D
Can'T get in touch with his wife, which is probably the more concerning thing.
- [07:07]
C
There's a body.
- [07:08]
D
Our friend wasn't answering his phone.
- [07:11]
C
We just did a wellness check.
- [07:12]
B
We just came here and he appears dead. Okay.
- [07:17]
C
His blood.
- [07:19]
B
He's laying next to his bed, off.
- [07:20]
C
Of his bed in this blood.
- [07:22]
B
I can't get closer to see more than that.
- [07:25]
D
Okay.
- [07:25]
C
You can tell he's obviously not breathing or anything. Yeah, yeah.
- [07:28]
D
Is it like how to.
- [07:29]
B
Like, like, like, you know, does he look like. It doesn't puddle, like. I can't look.
- [07:36]
C
Okay.
- [07:36]
B
All right, I understand. Okay. That's very moving to. To listen to you Know your heart breaks for the friend who has to go in and. And find that under those circumstances. But it does give to work off of. It tells us that there was a lot of blood, which is not surprising. But it also says that he's near the bed, presumably in his own bedroom. It doesn't say anything about where the wife may be. But Dave, this initial 911 call was made by his employer and I think it came in around 9am that morning. And it doesn't really give us any information as to why. The police believe the timeframe was between 2 and 5am but it did come in around 9am and reportedly that dentist office opened at 8. And it was very much unlike Dr. Tepe to be late for or miss work. May have even been the first time ever. And then of course, they tried to locate him, couldn't get him on the phone and they were unable to locate or raise his wife, I guess by phone. And this is what sort of got the ball rolling. But what do you make of this, where an employer is calling 911 from Miles and miles away because someone's not answering the phone? Is that common or what do you think?
- [08:57]
C
Yeah, especially when the person is never late to work. Sure. I mean, the minor children are not going to be calling 91 1, so someone has to. And I'm not surprised by it. I mean, it shows you the kind of person this was, someone who was always punctual where if he's late one day, it's a thing. I mean, you know, a lot of people out there who just slough in, you know, like midday, and maybe they work from home, maybe they're unreliable, but this guy is someone who has a regimented schedule, someone you can count on. And that's why it adds to the mystery, because why would he be targeted by a murderer, a killer? I mean, it looks almost like a professional hit. I don't have the answers. Now, I don't want to jump to conclusions by saying that that person of interest is the killer. We don't know. But I do believe the answers will be coming soon enough.
- [09:48]
B
Well, as our friend Mark Garagos likes to say, we're very good at speculating here at MK True Crime, and we do have the liberty of doing that because, look, we're, we're discussing ways that we might investigate or pursue leads in the case. And I think you would not be doing your job as an investigator if you didn't at least try to rule out, if you can, that it was a professional hit. Look, and the reasons that might support that there was no sign of forced entry. The children were, of course, left unharmed. And the fact that he, the husband, the father, the doctor was shot multiple times versus the wife, maybe just once, tends to me maybe suggest that he might have been the target. She may have been an afterthought because maybe she's a witness. Nothing else was, was taken from the home that we know of. Reportedly nothing was taken and the gun's missing. Right. So you can rule out murder suicide. They had, I guess whoever did this, the killer or killers thought enough about it, Dave, to take the gun away from the scene, but they were sloppy enough to leave the. The shellcases. And that's a lot that can tell forensic investigators, particularly firearms analysts. A lot. Go ahead.
- [11:00]
C
Yeah, that's true. It could still be a professional hit, though, because the way this wasn't any more bullets expended than necessary. Talking about two shots to the husband and one shot to the wife, that's someone who seems like they know what they're doing. And yes, they left the shells behind. But even trained killers aren't going to be hanging around the murder scene picking up and looking for shells. So I could see that this could be maybe a murder for hire, if we are going to be speculating here. But who would be an enemy of these individuals? Whoever it is is someone who is known or at least had a friend, a friend of someone who was able to get in without forced entry. So I don't know, but that's why we're all talking about it. And that neighborhood is a peaceful neighborhood and they're. These types of things don't happen a lot there. So the only thing that, to me, that would work against the murder for hire is the fact is that they let this person in without knowing who he was. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a paid killer.
- [11:57]
B
Yeah, well, look, there's. Look, this is how law enforcement oftentimes, you know, they get together and the investigators will hypothesize or speculate, if you will, because they're brainstorming to see, you know, what leads make sense to track down or maybe other avenues to investigate. This home reportedly was the home where this couple was married. It reportedly happened in their home. So clearly they had no problem inviting other people into their home. And reportedly the door locks were electronic combination locks. So my mind starts asking the question, is this somebody who knew the door code? Was this a family friend? Was this a relative, maybe someone who works in the home? Did they have childcare workers, babysitters, nannies, things like that, people who might have access. Did they keep valuables in their home that somebody knew about, maybe hidden valuables? You know, lots of things come to mind and these are things that these investigators are going to be looking at and hopefully they'll have something from the video. Maybe that video of the person of interest will bear some fruit. Maybe there will be some security video, doorbell video, something in the in the area that help will help bring this case to a close. Protein is now at Starbucks and it's.
- [13:19]
D
Never tasted so good.
- [13:20]
B
Try our all new caramel protein lattes with up to 31 grams of protein and options with no added sugar. Level up, level up. Level up. Level up, level up, level up. Your drink at Starbucks.
- [13:32]
D
Ondeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team.
- [13:38]
B
Or bridging cash flow gaps, On Deck's.
- [13:40]
D
Loans up to $250,000 help it happen fast. Rated A by the Better Business Bureau.
- [13:46]
B
And earning thousands of five star trust pilot reviews, On Deck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes@ondeck.com depending on certain loan attributes.
- [13:55]
D
Your business loan may be issued by.
- [13:56]
B
On Deck or Celtic Bank. On Deck does not lend to North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.
- [14:01]
A
A new year means new financial goals like making sure your savings are secure and diversified. Will this be the year you decide to talk to someone from Birchgold Group? They use an educational approach with a deep understanding of macroeconomics. There are forces pushing the dollar lower and gold higher, which is why they believe every American should own physical gold. So until July 30, not July, January, until January 30. If you're a first time gold buyer, Birchgold is offering a rebate of up to $10,000 on qualifying purchases. To claim eligibility and start the process, you just text MK to the number 989898. Birch Gold can help you roll an existing IRA or 401K into an IRA in gold and you are still eligible for a rebate of up to ten grand. Consider making right now your first time to buy gold and take advantage of a rebate up to $10,000 when you buy before January 30th. Text MK to the number 989898. Claim your eligibility today. Again, text MK to 989898.
- [15:06]
B
I want to move on though because we have other things in the news. I mentioned intro. We've got Nick Reiner. Dave. He's, he's back in the news and he is no longer on suicide watch. What's going on in his case?
- [15:20]
C
Well, the fact is that the defense lawyers in this case are trying to short circuit the case before it begins by saying that he is not going to be competent to stand trial. Now, this is different than an insanity offense. An insanity defense is when you have to establish that someone has an established medical condition and doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. So they shot, killed someone and they didn't know it was a crime, they didn't know it was wrong. But when you take actions afterwards to hide yourself, hide the weapon, then it shows. Now you're doing that because you knew what you did was wrong. It's very difficult to get the stat, the insane defense, very difficult to get acquitted. But it is easier to get a incompetency determination where you do not understand the proceedings before you and you cannot assist in, in your defense. If that's the ruling, then you get sent up to a mental hospital. You don't have to stand trial. So being on suicide watch, I think leads itself to an, to an incompetency determination. Or maybe it doesn't because if you are not competent, if you're totally bonkers, then maybe you're not going to try to commit suicide. You're just sitting there playing with board games all day. So I don't know one way or another if it moves a needle that he's been taken off suicide watch. But the strategy is by the defense lawyers to avoid a trial altogether by getting him ruled incompetent to stand trial. He gets sent to a mental hospital and maybe they never get him back to mental health where he ever has to stand trial.
- [16:50]
B
Well, his arraignment Scheduled for Wednesday, January 7th is the same day that this show that we're recording right now will air. And so on Friday of this week here at MK True Crime, Jona Spielberg and Mark Iglarsh will be on board here at MK True Crime along with special guest, also from MK Media, the show the Nerve, hosted by Maureen Callahan. Maureen is going to join them. She is very well plugged into all things related to the Reiner family. So that's something to watch for. I'm personally, you know, wondering. There's a piece of me that wonders if the arraignment's actually going to happen that day or if it's going to be delayed again. But as we speak right now, that's what's, that's what's planned. You know, there was some news. I don't know if you caught this, Dave. But there was some news. People magazine, for example, has reported that there was wellness checks that police did at the Reiner home going back, you know, some years before the killing. In fact, people says that they obtained records showing police went to the Brentwood home twice in 2019. That's six, seven years ago now. Once was for a call that was dispatched as a welfare check and one that was classified as mental health related. And I, you know, I'm sure Maureen may know more about this when she's on the show on Friday, but it seems to me that if you put all the dots together, two and two to me spells that the police were there for things related to the son and perhaps his troubles with mental illness. What's your read?
- [18:31]
C
Yeah, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizophrenia several years ago. His medication was changed at some point before the killings. And that's according to like three different sources. So it looks like medication has something.
- [18:44]
B
To do with it.
- [18:45]
C
He was being treated for a serious psychiatric disorder the time of the murder. But then why wasn't he in a facility? Like why was he living at his parents house? Like his elderly parents, 80 years old, they're out there in charge of taking care of this very disturbed individual. I just, I don't totally get it. I mean, the healthcare system we have in the United States does favor people with money and they had money. So I don't get why they were the ones with everything out there, who were his caregivers. And it seems like this guy was a ticking time bomb. And I do believe that's why you will see him charged with murder. But I don't think there'll be a death penalty here. I know that Matt Murphy has predicted that. One of our co hosts, I agree with him. I think when you have serious mental health issues, you're lucky if you can get him convicted, you're not going to get the death penalty. So his mental health is going to be center stage. I don't think they're ever going to contest that he is the killer. They're going to say he's just not mentally well.
- [19:46]
B
Well, you know, it's, it's really hard to succeed on mental health defenses such as insanity or incompetency to stand trial. You know, there's things in this case that point to the fact that I think he knew right from wrong. You know, taking measures, for example, to hide your identity or to conceal your involvement in a crime, that tends to show that you know right from wrong and that you can at least think in some logical way, even if it's maybe an evil way. So as far as getting a conviction, that may be one thing. But when. When it comes to the death penalty, first off, California very seldom uses the death penalty. I think there's a moratorium. Who knows if ever, or when it might be lifted on. On executions. So it just, you know, if you're the prosecutor, you think, okay, you've got these issues as real as they are. Maybe they don't. Maybe it's not enough to get an acquittal, but it certainly would be in the minds of the jurors in terms of mitigation of any sort of penalty. So I would agree with you and our friend Matt Murphy that I don't think the da, If I were the da, I might not seek it. It might just be a bridge too far. And look, you got to remember, the family members of victims have some say here. Prosecutors always take into account what family members want. And reportedly family members, co beneficiaries of the family trust, are paying for the defense. So there's at least some idea that there's some support from within the family. And I would have to imagine that many, if not most or all of the family members that would be involved in that discussion might not support seeking the death penalty.
- [21:28]
C
Yeah, I don't think. I mean, you're right. It's not going to happen. They're not going to seek the death penalty. It is always tough to get a insanity defense because even though John Hinckley won that, and a lot of people still remember that from the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt, it's still very rare, very hard to get. But I do think they have a legitimate chance of getting him sent to a mental hospital and postponing the trial because he is not competent to stand trial. I think that's the defense's best argument right now. And if they can just postpone it, maybe they can postpone it forever.
- [22:02]
B
And sometimes a postponement is a victory. So we'll see how that plays out. I want to move on, though, before the break to the Brian Kohberger case. You know, we started this show. This was the first case that we covered. We were going to cover Coburger. In fact, that was going to be our big trial that we sort of launched MK True Crime with. And then we got the curve ball of his guilty plea, and we. We covered the sentencing and all that. And we thought that he was often, you know, stuck away in prison now, out of sight, out of mind. But now we have the New York Times publishing A piece where they've interviewed his sister. Right. Did you see this? Mel Kohberger, according to the New York Times, preparing to start a new job as a mental health therapist in New Jersey. She says she couldn't help but feel this sense of alarm, and she went so far to send a message to her brother, saying, look, you're running outside and there's this psycho killer on the loose, okay? She remembers telling him to be careful. And according to the New York Times reporting, he thanked her for checking in on him and assured her that he would stay safe. What are you making of this story? What do you make of this interview with the sister and the things that she's now saying?
- [23:14]
C
It was a pretty positive story about the family, made them look sympathetic. Now, Megyn Kelly was on her show, and she was blasting it, thinking that this reporter didn't call it.
- [23:27]
B
Piece.
- [23:28]
C
Yeah, puff piece. Right. And she mentioned that the sister is, you know, has a blue hair and is. Is trying to be a therapist. And she said that if that looked like my therapist, I'd be running the other way. So that's. That's in a way that only Megan can say. But I do think that the family is, in a way, should be seen as at least partly a victim here. Not, of course, anywhere near the true victims, but the family is destroyed because their name is. They should change their name. And by all accounts, they did not, and they did not enable him to do it. They, you know, this kid had a heroin addiction. He was obese, and he just was a weird kid. And they were not, like, helping him cover up the crimes, as far as we know. And so I feel a little bit sympathy for them. Obviously nothing compared to the families of the victims. They're the real victims here. But I'm glad that finally they're speaking up, because they've been silent this whole time. And I was wondering, what are they saying?
- [24:30]
B
What.
- [24:30]
C
How are they feeling when they didn't really know that their loved one is a heinous monster?
- [24:36]
B
Well, you know, when I remember when I prosecuted case, even as a defense lawyer, you see the families of, like, people who plead guilty or they get convicted, they get sent to prison. It does. It tears. Their family's a part, too. So in a sense, they are victims. But speaking of Megyn Kelly, that's when she was talking on her show today, and we've talked about it here, you know, in the hours after this brutal quadruple murder, you know, Kohberger goes out of his way to get his mom on the phone. And talks for some period. And it was like multiple phone calls to her for pretty good significant periods of time in the, in the hours, you know, after the, these slayings. And there's a lot of people who just wonder, you know, did he maybe disclose more to her in that phone call than we are aware of? We may never know. But there was one thing, and I think we may have a picture of this. He had a, he had a coburger at the time he entered a plea. He had this picture, a drawing or something in the shape of a heart next to him on the, on the council table where he was sitting. And people said it looks like this hardened sort of a black heart. And the sister says, no, it's a heart surrounded by vibrant colors that she herself had drawn for her brother. So that she, she wanted to know that even if she could not be there, she wanted him to know that he was still love. Did you catch that?
- [26:03]
C
I, you know what? I did not catch it. That is, yeah, that's tough to take. This guy is a monster. And, but you know, the families don't pick their family members. This is who you're. You're born and raised with and this is who you have and you want to support people and you don't actually think that your child, your brother, is a serial killer who does? And I have to believe that even during the trial they were probably hoping until he pled guilty on that day that he was not guilty of these crimes. But now they can't deny it. The only people ever denying it are the weirdos on the Internet who still believe that he was railroaded. But there's always people like that around.
- [26:45]
B
All right, well, look, before we take a break, Dave, I want to note back to the Tepe case. The couple murdered in Columbus, Ohio. There's currently a GoFundMe set up to support the children. Again. They were ages 1 and 4 and of course they're orphans. They're going to have to be raised by others, hopefully family members and hopefully they won't have. Obviously I don't think the one year old, but hopefully that four year old doesn't have much memory of this time, but nevertheless they have. They're going to need some support moving through their. The rest of their lives. A GoFundMe has been set up. It's gofundme.com supporting-spencer-and-monique's-children for those who are interested and maybe we can get a link put up in the description on our YouTube broadcast of this show. Next we're going to have for the first time ever at MK True Crime, we're going to have an outside guest joining us. It's going to be my friend, a former Canadian litigator and Rumble creator. Viva Fry is going to come in. He's going to discuss with us Dave the charges against ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. And we have a listener request on the Tyler Robinson case. And remember guys, we want to hear from you. Email your comments and your story suggestions to MK True crime@devilmaycare media.com we'll be right back with Viva Fry.
- [28:09]
E
Need to restock inventory, cover seasonal dips or manage payroll? Ondeck's small Business line of credit provides immediate access to funds up to $200,000 exactly when your business needs it. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and full control over repayment, you can tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. Apply today@ondeck.com and funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Bank on Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amount subject to lender approval. Busy work weeks can leave you feeling drained. Prolon's five day fasting mimicking diet rejuvenates you at the cellular level, lets you enjoy real food and does not require an injection. Developed at USC's Longevity Institute, Prolon supports biological age reduction, metabolism, skin health and fat loss when combined with proper exercise and nutrition. Get 15% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe at prolonlife.com PandoraProromo.
- [29:09]
A
Every New Year people think about what a real fresh start looks like. For many, it begins at home. January is a great time to refresh your space and start the year feeling grounded and cozy. Earth can be your go to for that reset. They just launched their new Baja bedding set. It's their first fully matching collection sheets, duvet, cover, quilt, all inspired by the soothing tones of Baja California. The designs are gorgeous, the fabrics feel premium and it gives your bedroom that elevated resort like look. And do not forget the luxe bath towels. These towels are incredible. Made from a cotton and bamboo viscose blend with zero twist technology so they are plush, absorbent and feel like a warm hug when you step out of the shower. Everything comes with a 100 night sleep trial and a 10 year warranty. Start the new year with real comfort. Go to cozyearth.com, use my code Megan for up to 20% off cozyearth.com code Megan and if you get a post purchase survey Tell them you heard about Cozy Earth right here.
- [30:08]
B
Welcome back to MK True Crime. This past weekend, the United States armed forces captured ousted Venezuelan alleged president Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Celia Flores. They were transported to New York where Maduro faces. And this is a tongue twister. I'm going to go slow. I don't want to mess up this reading. It's narcotics, terrorism, conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices. His wife, Flores faces three charges and they are cocaine importation, conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices. Each faces a life in prison if convicted. We have, joining us here at MK True Crime, we're very pleased to welcome former Canadian litigator, Rumble, creator and frequent guest on the Megyn Kelly show and my friend, Viva Fry. Viva. Welcome to the show. How are you, buddy?
- [31:10]
D
Very good, very good. I like it. Former Canadian, and I'm still a Canadian, but former Canadian litigator. Great to be here.
- [31:16]
B
And of course, my colleague Dave Aronberg joins us to round out the discussion. Look, I want to set this up and then I'm going to let you guys sort of tell me what I'm, what I'm getting wrong because I know that you both are following this closely, particularly since you're in Florida, and I know that you're, you're following some, some developments down there. As I see it, guys. So we want to focus not on the politics of this, but the legality maybe of this indictment and of course the arrest. When we, when we handle any kind of criminal case, one of the first things we look at is, you know, did the police make the arrest legally and under the rule of law and didn't violate the Fourth Amendment or anything like that. But in the conte of this, you know, we've got US courts have seen this before. There's similar operations like this, Most notably the 1989, 1990 capture operation conducted by military against Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega during the US Invasion of Panama. If you remember, Noriega had been indicted on drug trafficking charges beforehand. And like we expect Maduro to do, he argued that he was the head of state and therefore had immunity and that his arrest was an illegal abduction. Now, the courts rejected those claims. The appeals court rejected those claims. They ruled that the US did not recognize him as Panama's legitimate leader. And they also ruled that the manner of his capture did not impair the jurisdiction of US Courts to try him. That's what we Call the Kerr Frisbee doctrine, if you guys can remember that from law school. I don't know if you covered that in Canadian law school, Viva. But the Kerr Frisbee doctrine, it basically says, look, it doesn't matter how a defendant is brought before the court. If, if they get there and there's otherwise jurisdiction, how they got there is not really an issue. And it didn't stop the US from prosecuting Noriega. And my prediction is it's not going to stop the US from prosecuting Maduro. But with that, Viva, you're the guest here. You go first. What do you have to say, buddy?
- [33:20]
D
Well, it is interesting, like the, I'm a Canadian lawyer, I pick bigger brains on this issue and whether or not it's legal, you know, a number of the arguments are, did it require Congress? Was it an act of war? Did it require congressional approval? And the biggest argument is, well, you know, every president has done something like this and they haven't gotten congressional approval. And Clinton did it, Obama did it, Bush did it, and therefore the precedent has been set that it's not unlawful. You know, you can't separate the politics from this. Other presidents might have gotten away with similar things. It won't stop a potential partisan impeachment if they decide to say, well, we're not going to let Trump play by the rules of all these other presidents. The, I don't know of the, the Frisbee, what was it?
- [34:04]
B
What was the name of the Kerr Frisbee?
- [34:06]
D
Kerr Frisbee. I don't know of the name of the principal. I just know that under American law, it doesn't matter if they got jurisdiction illegally of the individual once he's in the jurisdiction. You know, they don't ask whether or not he was kidnapped by CIA at an airport. Again, it's going to depend on whether or not you have partisan judges that want to humiliate the regime. And so you might end up with an activist judge in America who might order the deportation of Maduro the same way they ordered the re importation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Politics has ruined all of this. But, but, you know, the legal precedent, the historical precedent is there and it was a good pretext to make the Western, make the Northern Hemisphere just that much safer.
- [34:46]
B
Dave, I know you studied Kerr Frisbee in law school. I would imagine you did. Or maybe you went to law school before that doctrine. I don't know how old you are. No, I'm just kidding. I suspect you've heard of it. What do you make, I mean, we've got the, we've got two things at play, right, Dave. We've got the international law piece of this, which, you know, the United States is a party to the UN Treaty, a signatory, and, and as such under, under that body of sort of international law, you know, we, a country, any country, is authorized to use force in self defense or if it's authorized by the UN Security Council. And it's worth pointing out that the United States is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and as such has veto authority over anything they may do. So I think that the international law piece of this is something that politicians and historians and others might, can discuss and there's arguments on both sides of it. But Dave, can we really, can we really apply that international law or aren't we in the federal court system in a criminal case bound to follow our own criminal jurisprudence as set out in the Noriega prosecution? Am I wrong?
- [35:56]
C
Well, the United nations does not have veto power over the United States and we join the United nations not to be part of a suicide pact. So we're not going to let them dictate our national security. With that said, as Viva pointed out, I think it's hard to say that this was an imminent threat, that this was like, as they're calling it, a, was a prosecution action, a criminal justice action, and not a military action. When you have 150 warplanes and thousands of troops and the Delta Force, it's a military action. But Viva is also correct that there is precedent for this. Obama launched airstrikes on Libya without congressional authorization. Bill Clinton went 78 days of airstrikes on Kosovo, Serbia. That's Even beyond the 60 day limit you get under the War Powers Resolution. So there is precedent for presidents to violate the War Powers Resolution, or at least there's a gray area where they only have to tell Congress 48 hours afterwards. So I don't see that President Trump's going to get in trouble through national or international law from this. My biggest issue here is not on that side of it. It's more just the hypocrisy of if you're going to justify this because of the narco trafficking, which, look, Maduro's a bad guy. I'm glad he's gone. Okay, but then how do you explain pardoning the leader of Honduras who trafficked 400 tons of cocaine into the United States? That's a bad look. And that's going to come back to hurt the prosecution in the court of law. Although ultimately I do think the Maduro and his wife, if they go to trial, will be found guilty.
- [37:34]
B
Well, will it really affect the prosecution in criminal court? Because, I mean, we're talking about politics and international law. And the argument you just made is a fine argument to make and it's a great debate for historians and people who are living through it like we are now. But in a courtroom, subject to the rules of evidence, is it really relevant who may have pardoned who? Is it really relevant what may exist in the, in the United nations treaty that we signed? I mean, are we not supposed to try this case on the indictment based on the facts and the law and under US Criminal jurisprudence, we're left with the Noriega scenario. And that's, that's Noriega lasted for days and days too. That was not an in and out sort of one or two hour deal like this was. That was a bigger military operation. And the court said that it doesn't matter. You bring him to the United States, doesn't matter how he gets here. He's on our soil, we've got this arrest warrant, we're going to try him.
- [38:28]
C
Oh, yeah, the courts are going to say we don't care how you brought him here. The fact is that he's here and the Noriega is a precedent for that. So I'm not as concerned with that part of it. I'm just thinking of the prosecutors who are going to have to then defend a selective prosecution argument from the defense lawyers to say he pardoned this guy here for doing the same thing because it likes his politics where he prosecutes this guy Maduro. Also, I do think that you can get it to the jury to try to get jury nullification if you try to show that this is a political move, that Trump's doing this because he doesn't like the politics. It's not because of narco trafficking. And Trump made some comments about the evidence when it comes to the former Honduran leader saying that you can't trust those witnesses, they're dirty, they're unreliable. Well, those are the kind of witnesses we're going to use against Maduro, those kinds of witnesses who flipped who are part of the drug trafficking. So I just think it complicates things for the prosecution's sake.
- [39:18]
B
You know, Viva Dave makes an interesting point about maybe the defense could argue and they look, these defense lawyers are going to have to be creative and they're being, they're very high profile, well paid lawyers, the ones that currently are in the cases and so they're going to be creative. They're going to make this selective prosecution argument. Now, that's a legal argument. It's not one that really is supposed to be made to a jury. Nor is jury nullification, by the way. We talk about it a lot here on the show. But jury nullification is an improper argument. You're not supposed to make that argument to a jury. Are there ways to do it sort of on the down low? Yes, there are, but it's not something that's supposed to happen. Okay. So I don't think we're going to be having this kind of discussion in a courtroom. But viva on, on jury on the issue of whether or not there's selective prosecution. And that's sort of an argument, a legal argument that might be made. What would you have to say to that piece of this argument?
- [40:21]
D
Well, I'd say the, the pardon of the Honduran president or the former president. I don't think it enters the picture. I would be shocked if it even enters as evidence. But, but easily distinguishable. You can make other considerations, other arguments for the pardon in that case and the prosecution in this case, I would imagine. I would argue, if I'm the defense, that you want to argue that this is a sham of an indictment, pretextual for the purposes of political jockeying and jostling for power. You might focus on what Trump said in the same breath as the arrest, which is we're now going to run this country and exploit its oil reserves. And you can make a compelling argument that the indictment and the removal of Maduro was purely pretextual for geopolitical power play, and an entirely defensible one at that. You say, get China out of Venezuela, get Russia out of Venezuela, take control of their oil reserves, and if we need a pretext, we'll make one up with this, with this indictment, which probably has some decent legs to stand on for the cocaine importation. Selective prosecution. I mean, look, I don't know what my experience would be in America. Good luck with it. This is a man, by all accounts, who was a gangster criminal. Whether or not you think he's a legitimate or illegitimate leader, gangster, criminal, drug trafficker. It's not because you pardon another one in another case that you don't prosecute this one. In this case, I would just be worried about activist judges. You can get jury nullification or judicial nullification. And if they say, look, we don't, you didn't follow proper procedure. We want to embarrass the Trump administration. So we'll order him be sent back, try to get him through lawful extradition means. You know, you might run into something like that, like you got the judicial activism in the Comey case out of.
- [41:57]
B
D.C. well, let's get back a second to, to the idea of jury nullification, because this is a segue into a question I've got for the two of you, since you're both Floridians. So we got this case pending in the Southern District of New York, and someone said, why is it there? Well, it's there because that's where I guess the Biden administration chose to impanel a grand jury to bring their initial indictment. And, and so that's where the case was born, so to speak. And so we're left with this judge who, by the way, you know, he's, he's, he's 92 years old, but nevertheless, he's very active, has been involved in a lot of big cases and is sort of a straight shooter. In fact, he kind of had to deal with a little bit of an outburst. Mat Maduro in court, who wanted to go on a rant and talked about he's still the leader of Venezuela and all this, and the judge shut him down. But there's talk about possibly moving this case to somewhere in Florida. And I guess the corollary to that question is why wasn't it brought there to start with? So I'd like to. Then that would be to prevent jury nullification. The argument or the idea being that in New York, like we've seen in other cases that are politically charged, you may have a jury that's not so neutral. Right. But maybe you have a more neutral or better jury for the prosecution in Florida. So I'll toss it to you guys to tell me why it's not in Florida. Will it ever go to Florida? Could it be in Florida? And the last question while we're talking about it is will Florida, the state of Florida, be bringing any charges? Start with you, Viva.
- [43:34]
D
Well, so I just double checked. I think the indictment was originally from March 2020. So it was actually under Trump's last year of his first term, brought in New York. I asked the same question. I consider the Southern District of New York to be tied for the most corrupt district in all of America, right up there with, with D.C. so maybe the thought process is, if you're dealing with corrupt districts, you might be able to get the issuance of questionable indictments for political, you know, ultimately political purposes.
- [44:01]
B
Yeah.
- [44:02]
D
Look, how do you even get a jury of your peers when you're the imported president of a foreign country. A jury of your peers are not going to be 12Americans. So it's ironic to even, you know, talk about a jury of your peers for the former president or de facto leader of Venezuela who was brought here unwillingly to stand trial. Yeah, I think demographically you'd get a better jury pool, I would imagine, in Florida than in New York. And you would certainly get a less TDS afflicted jury pool in Florida than in New York. But I, you know, jurisdiction. I know desantis floated the idea, bring him down here. We'll take him. It would be, you know, a political w, I guess, to satisfy the Venezuelans in exile in Florida. But no jury nullification. We've seen it in a couple of highly political cases. I would just be shocked to see it in this particular case.
- [44:50]
B
Dave, you're plugged in down there to all things criminal justice and, and politics even. So do you see that there's any way that this case could wind up in Florida? Maybe a new indictment or a transfer of this one?
- [45:02]
C
Unlikely. I think Viva is correct that if it gets down here, it's because Governor DeSantis is going to order his Attorney General through the Office of Statewide Prosecutor to file state charges. Maybe racketeering, money laundering. It's going to be hard to do that. This is really a federal case, not a state case. And I think it's going to stay in SDNY. And that's because, as Viva said, SDNY has been building this case for 15 years. Madur was first named in a sealed indictment in Manhattan back years ago. And they were finally was finally unsealed in March 2020 by Bill Barr, the Attorney General. And so they already had the active warrants by the judge, the 92 year old judge Hellerstein. I do not think he's the type to just to do judicial nullification. I don't worry about that. As far as the jury pool, yeah, you may have a more progressive jury pool and all it takes is one for a hung jury. And you could try to get jury nullification. There are ways to do it. And you have the mayor. And I'm going to be speaking about it in my closing statement later in the broadcast. But you've got the mayor there already coming out and condemning this illegal raid, this illegal action, saying that regime change is terrible. Of course he's okay with regime change if it's to arrest Bibi Netanyahu, but I'm ahead of myself. But I do think that is a concern for people during Nullification, I think you get less of a chance in South Florida, but I don't think really there's a strong of a nexus in the Southern district of Florida.
- [46:27]
B
All right, well, it's going to be interesting to see where this goes. This is one, obviously that we and all the other shows and media will be following for, I'm sure, years to come. I want to move on though, to Tyler Robinson, the accused killer of Charlie Kirk, while we've got Viva here, because, Viva, one of the things that we do is we take suggestions here and answer questions sent in to us by our audience members. And so we have a question regarding the Tyler Robinson case brought to us by MK True Crime listener Pete and at listeners, I guess I should say, Pete and Joan Hines. And they say, look, they say, greetings, welcome back and happy New Year. Your show has been sorely missed in the Tyler Robinson proceedings. We see that his defense team has filed a motion against some or all of the prosecution team due to a conflict of interest. This conflict is alleged because a member of the family of one of the prosecutors was in attendance and near Charlie when he was assassinated. We don't understand why this would be a conflict for a prosecutor. Some commentators have hypothesized that this could cause a prosecutor to be overzealous in his or her trying of the case. If so, how is this a conflict? Do we not want a zealous prosecutor? Perhaps as laypeople, we don't fully understand conflict of interest within this context. Please discuss and clarify us. Thank you. From Pete and Joan Ellen Hines. I think that's a great question. Very thoughtful, well worded question. I have questions about it too. I don't see how it's a conflict of interest that could remove a prosecutor. But Dave, look, you were a prosecutor a lot longer than me and more recently than me. And you know the rules of conflict pretty well. So what do you take? I'll let you take the first stab.
- [48:25]
C
Dave, I think this is overplayed. What's the specific conflict here? It seems pretty attenuated. We need more information as to who this relative is, how close they are, and I don't think it really should matter, except maybe it could delay matters. But in the end, it's not going to bump the entire district attorney's office off the case. It's not going to lead to an acquittal. It's just going to perhaps, at worst, I think delay matters a little bit.
- [48:50]
B
Viva, they're saying that as I understand it and I'm just going to Try to simplify it. Someone in the crowd in attendance, and all these people are witnesses. Right? They all witnessed this murder. And someone who was in attendance is a relative of unknown variety to someone unknown on the prosecution team and was texting this to whoever it is in the prosecutor's office who was in real time showing it to the head da, the elected da. And so that's why they're saying that he was somehow, I guess, overwhelmed by emotion when he brought this. I guess that's the argument. And therefore he's going to be overzealous. Well, first off, zealous advocacy is what we want. We, in fact, it's required of all lawyers, whether they're prosecutors or defense lawyers. They have to be a zealous advocate for their client or in this case, the state. Overzealous is. Well, you know, it's. It's one of these things that we can debate what it means, but unless you get to like a Finely Willis situation where the overzealousness causes you to engage in some kind of misconduct, I don't see how it rises to the level of any kind of disqualification. Viva. But I'll defer to you.
- [49:58]
D
Well, I mean, I would defer to me. At your own risk and peril. I have minimal experience on this, but just logically, the conflict doesn't work in the right direction. You know, with Fannie Willis, there was a financial conflict of interest. And if this were the case that he was the relative of the accused, you could fear that there might be some disclosing to the defense, you know, of strategy. The only conflict I can imagine, they were so egregious and shocked by the murder that they would hide evidence from the defendant and violate, you know, disclosure obligations. But no, okay, the old expression, 95% of lawyers give the other 5% a bad name. All's fair game if you're going to try to either delay or complicate the matter. But worth remembering, prosecutors are not there to secure convictions. They're there to pursue justice. And that means, you know, behaving accordingly in the context of a case. In this case, no. I mean, it might be conspiracy for the sake of entertaining conspiracy, but I don't see any reasonable conflict. And it would work the other way around. In any event, if somebody's a witness, maybe if they need to testify, they couldn't then have an active role in the prosecution. But this sounds like too far removed and on the wrong side of the potential conflict.
- [51:09]
B
All right, impromptu lightning round here between the two of you, I'm sure the producers are wondering where I'm going right now, but in 30 seconds or less, Viva, tell us why or why not. The issue of cameras in the courtroom is such a big deal in this case.
- [51:26]
D
It's a big deal in every case. It should be the rule and not the exception. And the exceptions should be exceedingly exceptional. If we hadn't had cameras in the courtroom during the Fani Willis case, they would have successfully covered up the government corruption, government incompetence. There's no downfall or pitfalls to having cameras in the courtroom. They were intended to be public in as much as you can attend in person. They should be broadcast so that the aggregate knowledge of the Internet and collective wisdom can either shed light on it or put on blast government corruption, government malfeasance, and so that people can not entertain untenable conspiracy theories, as there are many floating around in this particular case. So it should be the rule, and there's no good argument against it.
- [52:08]
B
All right, Dave, they're now releasing transcripts from hearings that were closed. Isn't it good enough just to release a cold transcript script?
- [52:16]
C
No, I totally agree with Viva. Let the sunshine in. We do that here in Florida. I think it's terrible when in this day and age we keep cameras out of the corporate federal court in certain states, especially in this case where you have so many conspiracy theories, especially just from some podcasters who are accusing foreign governments of being involved. We know who did this and it should be exposed to the world so that there's no mistaking. And so, yeah, cameras in the quorum all day long.
- [52:44]
B
All right, look, we. We're glad you could be with us, Viva. Thank you so much for your time. For those of you listening on Sirius XM or on podcast or watching on YouTube collectively, give a round of applause for the first ever guest on MK True Crime, our friend Viva Fry. And when we get back, Dave and I will have the first closing arguments for 2026. Stick around.
- [53:11]
E
Cash flow crunch on Deck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today@ondeck.com funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic bank on does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amount subject to lender approval. Busy work weeks can leave you feeling drained. Prolon's five day fasting mimicking diet rejuvenates you at the cellular level, lets you enjoy real food and does not require an injection. Developed at USC's Longevity Institute, Prolon supports biological age reduction, metabolism, skin health and fat loss when combined with proper exercise and nutrition. Get 15% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe at prolonlife.com PandoraProromo.
- [54:09]
A
If your credit card balance is fre you out after all the holiday spending, I mean, right? I have something that can save you money right now. You could cut your cell phone bill in half by switching to Pure Talk's saver plan. Just $20 a month for unlimited talk text and 3 gigs of high speed data on Pure Talk superfast nationwide 5G network. And as a veteran led company that cares about giving back to those who serve, if you are active or former military or a first responder, you're going to save an additional 20% every single month. That's awesome. The easiest way to free up cash flow is to reduce your monthly recurring bills. Start by cutting overpriced wireless and consider switching to PureTalk. Go to PureTalk.com Kelly and make the switch today in as little as 10 minutes. Again, talk text and data for just $20 a month. That's PureTalk.com Kelly and you will save an additional 50% off your first first month. Pure Talk, America's wireless company.
- [55:10]
B
All right, welcome back to MK True Crime. It's now time for our very first closing argument of the new year. And with that, Dave Aronberg. You're up, buddy. What's on your mind, Phil?
- [55:22]
C
I ended 2025 on a high note with my closing argument. I said it was about optimism and love and thankfulness. But now I'm back to starting 2026 with an outrage of the week. This one involves the socialist mayor of New York, Zohan Mamdani. I suspect he'll provide a lot of fodder for the next four years after the seizure of Nicolas Maduro. Madani released a statement and he said, quote, I was briefed this morning on the US Military capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. And he says that unilaterally attacking a sovereign nation is an act of war and a violation of federal international law. This blatant pursuit of regime change doesn't just affect those abroad, it directly impacts New Yorkers. And then he said, my administration will continue to monitor the situation and issue relevant guidance. Okay, a few questions. First, we're Talking about a 34 year old with no experience in international relations or international law, but somehow suddenly he's an expert on it. He decries this, this blatant pursuit of regime change because the regime that was changed was a fellow socialist. But when it comes to Bibi Netanyahu, Madani says he'll arrest him if he comes to New York City. So that regime change is apparently okay for him. And why release a statement? Why did you say you've been briefed? Briefed by whom? Are you getting high level situation room briefings? Who's briefing you? You just got elected. You're the mayor. You're not US Senator, not the president, not member of Congress. You're saying you're monitoring the situation and will issue relevant guidance. To whom?
- [56:57]
B
Who?
- [56:58]
C
You're elected on affordability. Do something about that. But instead, you're way outside your lane. Mayor Mandani may think he needs to issue statements on every issue because people care what a 34 year old former rapper with no foreign policy experience thinks about world affairs. But the mayor needs to learn that a little humility goes a long way. That should be his New Year's resolution.
- [57:24]
B
All right, well, thank you so much, Dave. Look, I've got to start with I've got like a, a pre closing before I get to my closing. So. And I want to just say thanks to all of you for being our audience. If you have not yet subscribed on YouTube or podcast or both, please do so and hit the like button on our videos on YouTube. That's how other people can find us. Tell your friends, tell your family, tell your mothers, tell your fathers. If you like this kind of content, tell someone about us so that they can subscribe too. As I have alluded to in this show, we have some very excited, exciting changes that are coming up very soon and we look forward to sharing more with you on that in the very near future. So keep in touch with us by email@mk true crimeevilmaycare media.com but also follow us on social media. K True Crime. Follow the cast and the crew as well. I'm @philhollawayesq. On Twitter or X and Instagram and Dave is at Ehrenberg and follow the rest of us because we love to engage with our audience and we even, like at least some of us maybe more than others, like to respond to the comments from those of you who watch on YouTube. So we love to interact with the audience and for this to be a collaboration with you, our audience. So please subscribe and encourage others to do as well, now, for my first closing of the new year, I have a rant, okay, so imagine this. Imagine that you take a day off of work. You've arranged childcare, you're driving across town. Let's just call it in Atlanta, Georgia. And you're waiting in long lines outside of court. Let's just call it the. The City of Atlanta Municipal Court. And, you know, you get there only to hear, you know, sorry, there are no judges in the building today. We couldn't be bothered to let you in or to let you know ahead of time, but your case has been rescheduled until next month, so you're gonna have to do it all over again. And this is a story that comes to me this week from a friend of mine, a real life situation that happened to her on a very minor traffic ticket. And they say, look, you know, you can't just pay your traffic ticket. You're gonna have to come back in person and do it all again. And that's what her and scores of other people faced this week in the municipal court of Atlanta. The docket system crashed. There were no advance notices sent out, and every single case was rescheduled to the next month with no explanation. People left angry. They were frustrated. They were out of pocket for expenses, and there's no resolution to this in sight. You know, look, we've got to have functioning court systems. And this is not just about paperwork. It's about the foundation of a healthy society. Reliable courts deliver timely justice. They hold people accountable. They protect the rights of victims and the accused. And more importantly, they uphold the rule of law itself, the principle that no one is above the law and everyone is entitled to fair treatment. When courts break down like this, the rule of law crumbles. Victims are denied closure sometimes, and offenders face no consequences. The public trust in the judicial system and the courts can collapse on this, and the entire community pays the price, Whether it's Atlanta or your community, where you live. This kind of thing leads to rising disorder, erodes confidence in these institutions, and brings about it a sense that the system no longer works for ordinary people. And speaking of this event in Atlanta, what's going on right outside the courthouse doors? When we got a picture of this, there's an entire block buried in garbage, buried in clothes. There's mattresses and debris everywhere, and it's just not the kind of thing that we can. We can't really tolerate our courts operating in this fashion. We've got to bring back respectability to the courthouses, and it needs to happen at all. Levels of government, whether it's your city, your county, your township, your state or even your nation. That's it. That's my rant about courts for today and for the first show of 2026, I want to thank you for being with us and also very special guest. Special thanks to our guest, Viva Fry, and of course, to my fellow contributor and co host, Dave Ehrenberg. We'll see you later. Lots more to come in 2026. Thanks.