Lawyer Tom Mortati Weighs In on Karen Read Civil Trial!

Super civil lawyer Tom Mortati (Harding Mozzotti) has been trying civil cases on both the plaintiff and the defense side for over three decades winning multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements for his clients in the process. He joins Roberta to discuss everything you wanted to know about the wrongful death civil case brought by the O’Keefe family against Karen Read. When can we expect a trial? What are Karen Read’s chances of bringing in other parties in the case? And what advice does he have for the O’Keefe’s attorneys. Let’s get into it!

Get access to exclusive content & support the podcast by a Patron today! https://patreon.com/robertaglasstruecrimereport
Throw a tip in the tip jar! https://buymeacoffee.com/robertaglass
Support Roberta by sending a donation via Venmo. https://venmo.com/robertaglass
Become a channnel member for custom Emojis, first looks and exclusive streams here: https://youtube.com/@robertaglass/join

Thank you Patrons! Shelly Safford, Carol Mumumeci, Therese Tunks, JC, Lizzy D, Elizabeth Drake, Texas Mimi, Barb, Deborah Shults, Debra Ratliff, Stephanie Lamberson, Maryellen Sudol, Mona, Karen Pacini, Jen Buell, Marie Horton, ER, Rosie Grace, B. Rabbit, Sally Merrick, Amanda D, Mary B, Mrs Jones, Amy Gill, Eileen, Wesley Loves Octoberfest, Erin (Kitties1993), Anna Quint, Cici Guteriez, Sandra Loves GatsbyHannna, Christy, Jen Buell, Elle Solari, Carol Cardella, Jennifer Harmon, DoxieMama65, Carol Holderman, Joan Mahon, Marcie Denton, Rosanne Aponte, Johnny Jay, Jude Barnes, JenTheRN, Victoria Devenish, Jeri Falk, Kimberly Lovelace, Penni Miller, Jil, Janet Gardner, Jayne Wallace (JaynesWhirled), Pat Brooks, Jennifer Klearman, Judy Brown, Linda Lazzaro, Suzanne Kniffin, Susan Hicks, Jeff Meadors, D Samlam, Pat Brooks, Cythnia, Bonnie Schoeneman-Dilley, Diane Larsen, Mary, Kimberly Philipson, Cat Stewart, Cindy Pochesci, Kevin Crecy, Renee Chavez, Melba Pourteau, Julie K Thomas, Mia Wallace, Stark Stuff, Kayce Taylor, Alice, Dean, GiGi5, Jennifer Crum, Dana Natale, Bewildered Beauty, Pepper, Joan Chakonas, Blythe, Pat Dell, Lorraine Reid, T.B., Melissa, Victoria Gray Bross, Toni Woodland, Danbrit, Kenny Haines and Toni Natalie.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Just to be clear, you didn't do it.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
We know who did it, Steve, we know, and we
know who spearheaded this cover up.

Speaker 3 (00:07):
You all know if John was beaten up and attacked
in that house. Who did it?

Speaker 2 (00:12):
We don't know. We don't know.

Speaker 3 (00:14):
We don't know, and it's not for us to know.
Somebody other than Karen, somebody other than Karen is responsible
for that, for the killing of John.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
You are listening to the ROBERTA. Glass True Crime Report
putting the true back in true crime from New York City.

Speaker 3 (00:46):
ROBERTA.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
Glass is now on the record. Okay, here we go,

(01:13):
my guest, can everybody hear me? I can, Okay, you
can hear me? Tom? All right, Yes, all right, you
can hear me. That's all right, my guests. Tom Ratotti
has three decades of experience on both the sibyl uhs.
Let me try this. Get my guess. Tom Ratotti has

(01:35):
three decades of experience both the plaint off ents defended
side of civil litigation, and he has won more multi
million dollars settlements than I have time for in this introduction.
On June of this year, Tom was awarded the Daniel

(01:59):
Mahoney Memorial Award by the Capital District Trial Lawyers Association
for his quote outstanding commitment and service to his clients,
the bar, and his profession. However, it's his role as

(02:20):
counsel for the Town of Potsdam brought on a suit
brought on by Nick Hillary, which brought mister Matati to
the attention of true crime audiences, and he's been a
tireless advocate for Garrett Phillips ever since. Welcome Tom Rotati.

Speaker 3 (02:41):
Hey Roberta. Thank you for having me back. It's a
pleasure to be here.

Speaker 2 (02:45):
Thank you for doing this so you know, we met.
I think it's a pretty unusual story. I did a
podcast and I was skeptical about some of the claims
made in the HBO lick. I can't even call it
a documentary film, I don't know, moving TV series, whatever

(03:10):
you want to call it? Who killed Garrett Phillips? And
you called me up and proceeded to give me, probably
for about an hour, the real all the facts of
that case listed off of the top of your head,
one after the next, and it's pretty impressive. And a

(03:32):
lot of those facts, really, you know, hadn't been in
the public domain until at least not in the I
mean maybe in the public domain, but not in the
public consciousness, I would think until we did that pop
Yeah with Nick with the Garrett Phillips and Nick Hillery

(03:54):
and representing the town of Popston.

Speaker 3 (03:56):
Yeah, absolutely so one just minor claif and it was
the village of Potsdam. It's somewhat different. It's within the
town of Potsdam, but that's okay. The Potsdam Village p
D would probably want me to say, no, no, it
was us anyway, But yeah, I was involved in that case,

(04:17):
you know, within a few months after Garrett's murder, as
a result of you know, mister Hillary bringing civil claims
against the Potsdam Police Department, which then led to all
kinds of things that happened, including discovery that you know,
the while I wasn't representing the DA's office for the people,

(04:37):
if you will, and there were no claim as charges
filed against him, he hadn't been indicted yet or anything.
It was it was a lot of the work from
the civil case that he brought upon himself that led
to you know, him ultimately being indicted. In fact, he
wouldn't have been indicted, I believe, and wouldn't have been
charged officially but for him bringing it upon himself by

(04:58):
virtue of this civil case, you know, and I became
in many ways, you know, an advocate for Garrett, because
my defense in that civil case was all about, well,
I'm going to prove this guy as the one who
did it and get his claims dismissed. So you know,
that's been an ongoing thing for me for you know, well,
it's been for it was fourteen years ago, just a

(05:20):
few days October twenty sixth, excuse me, October twenty four
of twenty eleven, which was just this past Friday, was
the fourteenth anniversary of Garrett's passing. And I will not
ever forget that young man. Had never met him, but
he had a profound impact on my life. So I
owe him a debt that I can't repay. And I've

(05:42):
been advocating on his behalf in various forums and much
you know yours. We've had done several programs together or
podcasts together over the years, and I think the first
one was what four years ago, I want to say,
I'm lead have had a number since and it had
been great. Plus stepping out into some other cases too,
including this one, the Karen Read case.

Speaker 2 (06:07):
Always a pleasure I think there's something.

Speaker 3 (06:12):
I can barely hear you.

Speaker 4 (06:15):
Yeah, okay, my check.

Speaker 5 (06:49):
Robertas strides through the static case true crime got them
Where the shadows play their placed for its to fold
when a spotlight themes back focus, queen busting propaganda scheme,
glass shadow, lies that goes through.

Speaker 6 (07:02):
The streets, standing for victims, giving voice.

Speaker 5 (07:05):
That beats and hy c polls truth sharpest night with
Birda exposing she's the anti fried light pardcast warrior, dissecting
Satan's defense, twisted innocense, claims, breaking pretense. Gotham's truth Seeker

(07:30):
cuts clean with the blade. Facts in the forefront, No
justice gets swaying cold facts drip heavy real talk, gun furls,
cracking cases open like oysters with pearls, innocense gimmicks, crumble
the dust in the wind for victims, her creed justice
till the end, headphones blazing, She drops heavy artillery.

Speaker 3 (08:00):
Now we're just twisted meat.

Speaker 5 (08:01):
Blunt objects, civility. Roberta God receipts that unraveled deploy exposing
the lies, these frauds that deploy.

Speaker 7 (08:09):
Glass shatters, lies that goes through.

Speaker 5 (08:10):
The streets, standing for victims, given voice, stamp meats and
why post truth sharpest Knight Roberta exposes she's the anti
fraud light.

Speaker 2 (08:49):
Okay, that should be better.

Speaker 3 (08:51):
Can everybody hear me?

Speaker 2 (08:52):
Let's see, let's see if that's better? Is that better? Guys?
I'll just wait for everybody to catch up with me.

Speaker 3 (09:01):
I can hear you great now? Or burta?

Speaker 2 (09:03):
Okay? Okay they're saying it. It was soft? All right,
here we go better. Everyone says better. Okay, great, thank you.
So getting into Karen Reid and this civil suit, what
are the challenges for the Okey family? What are the
challenges in a wrongful death suit?

Speaker 3 (09:25):
So, you know, we'll start with what the case is.
Obviously we know that it's about John's passinga when that occurred, etcetera.
So looking at the complaint, you know they sued basically
the two bars involved McCarthy's and the Waterfall for basically overserving,
if you will, Karen Reid, and that leads to her
eventually you know, killing him and running him over with

(09:48):
her car truck whatever it was. And then of course
they've sued the person that was actually behind the wheel,
you know that they claim was responsible for this death.
So and again this is a civil case. So it's
it's a preponderance of evidence standard that they have to
prove their claims by in front of a jury someday,
which is, you know, a more likely than not standard

(10:09):
or fifty one percent to forty nine percent. When you're
looking at it at a balancing scale or a balancing standpoint,
you know, the challenges that the O'Keefe family having. The
good news is this case was investigated obviously tremendously so
by by the police, the district attorney's office, et cetera.

(10:30):
Notwithstanding the read defense, you know, arguments that it wasn't
properly investigated. That's a whole you know, another issue. But
a lot of times in civil wrongful death cases where
it's a straight up negligence, you know, we don't have
all of this other stuff that was done. So in
many ways, you know, they benefit from the things that happened. Obviously.

(10:50):
On the flip side, there's the incredible publicity. There's the
for lack of a better term, the emotions on different
sides of this we've seen play out on the street
corners outside the courthouse during the criminal case, which you
know adds a whole other layer. And let's face the
facts any jury that they ultimately impanel. You know, it'd

(11:12):
be surprising if nobody heard about what went on, et cetera.
And as well as the media circus, which is exactly
what it was that you know, surrounded this case from
pretty much the get go and especially through the criminal
trial and even up to now.

Speaker 2 (11:29):
Yeah, and they got the second the second jury, they
got a investigative team to look into potential jurors and
if they could not have picked worse jurors than they
had picked it and the second case, I mean the
foreman was looking immediately after to make deals to make
money off of this. You know, what if you were

(11:53):
if you were representing I mean, I mean, if you
were picking a jury for this case on either side,
I mean, actually, let's put it on the key side.
If you were the O'Keefe's lawyer, what kind of juror
would you be looking for?

Speaker 3 (12:08):
Well, you obviously want somebody that's first of all sympathetic
to the plaintiff's plight. And what do I mean by that?
That's people who are suing for personal injuries and in
this case, wrongful death of a family member due to
somebody's claim negligence. You know, so you want to eliminate
the people right off the rip who say, you know what,
I don't believe in lawsuits, or you know, I don't

(12:31):
think people should be able to sue for this kind
of thing, or you know, because ultimately what every civil
case and the judge alluded to this and that hearing
on the twenty second when he was talking about, hey, folks,
you all might want to come together and try to
resolve this someday, but civil cases are ultimately only about
money damages and awarding of money damages. That's it. We

(12:51):
can't do anything else with this type of civil case.
So you want people who are willing and able to,
you know, hear the claims in ourn't bin in preconceived
notions of you know what lawsuits are craft. There's too
many cases out there, and you know what, there are
some frivolous cases out there in the civil world, absolutely,
but you know, when you have someone we know, this

(13:12):
individual died and you know there's great arguments to be
made as to who's responsible. And again, in this being
a civil case, you know, the O'Keefe family is saying
both the bars are at fault here for you know,
serving and overserving me. I think according to the information,
I think she had something like nine drinks in the

(13:33):
span of about three hours and twenty minutes. So you
have that aspect of it, and then you have her
actions as well, being the individual responsible. So I kind
of maybe went a little far afield with your question,
But you really want people who are going to be
willing to listen to the evidence and be patient, because

(13:53):
this is probably going to be, just like the criminal trial,
somewhat lengthy affair, which also depends on how much and
we'll get to this in a bit, how much of
these additional claims that the read defense team wants to
bring are in this forum versus somewhere else. But ultimately,
you know, ROBERTA, you want people who are reasonably intelligent,

(14:15):
willing to be patient, willing to listen, and to give
you a fair shape, ultimately, right.

Speaker 2 (14:23):
And they all say they all say they are, but
certainly yeah, and you don't want any I mean, one
of the things we saw with the criminal case was
some anti beliefs, and that would be I would think
that would be something that I would be asking about
if I were a representing the Ook family, which is
there's no chance of that since I'm not a lawyer.

Speaker 3 (14:44):
Yeah, but no, you're exactly right, because obviously you know
his background in law enforcement and all of the other
you know, people that were involved here, if you will,
by involved, meaning you know the folks over at what
was it, the the McKay's and the Alberts, all these
people that knew him or or otherwise. I think one

(15:05):
of the lawyers referred to as law enforcement adjacent something. So, yeah,
you need to talk to these jurors and say, well,
what do you think about you know, lawyer excuse me,
law enforcement and police officers or whatever, And you know,
you want to get rid of anybody that has a
bias against them and say, well, forget it. I'm never
going to find in favor of that guy's family because
he was a cop. You know, obviously those people can't

(15:27):
be fair, and it takes a lot of weeding out
and a lot of asking questions. So, you know, injury
selection in civil cases, it's a lot of tell me why,
or you phrase things like some people are against you know,
the law enforcement system, or against police agencies and police officers,

(15:48):
and some people are very much in favor. Which side
of the aisle do you fall on? And then you
know you want to tell me more. Tell me why,
because you want to start pulling things out of people,
because it's jury selection isn't effective when the lawyers do
all the talking. You want to ask questions. You want
to listen to the answers and keep asking questions to

(16:09):
pull out as much information as you can so you
can get rid of people that should be no longer
on this jury and can't honestly and effectively, you know,
fairly serve. It takes time, and it certainly takes talent.

Speaker 2 (16:24):
Yeah, just like a little cliquy noise. I don't know
if you're wrestling with something that.

Speaker 3 (16:29):
I've made my mic.

Speaker 2 (16:31):
Okay, Yeah, can Gigi's asking can civil trials be moved
to a different county?

Speaker 3 (16:40):
So as a general rule, so what I think she's
referring tos in the criminal world, for example, you can
seek to have a case move to a different form
or a different venue within the state because you can't
get a fair trial in a certain county. Okay, So
that happens often in criminal cases. Case is generally speaking, no,

(17:02):
While yes, you can get them moved, it's exceedingly rare
for the arguments of like a fair trial because usually
the rules say, hey, a case will be filed in
the county in which the parties live. You know, the
plainiffs live, where the defendants are, where the incident occurred.

(17:23):
Those are all appropriate venues or appropriate jurisdictions for trial.
I can't say it's never happened, but in my thirty
four plus years now, I've seen two motions in civil
cases where they tried to move the venue, not because
it wasn't a proper venue. Again, you can have cases

(17:45):
get moved because hey, wait a second, nobody connected to
the cases in that county. Okay, that case should be moved.
But I've seen two motions in thirty some odd years
for moving a case because the defendant claimed I can't
get a fair trial in this county. And I'm not
seeing neither one of those granted. So it's pretty hard
in a civil world to move it for that type
of thing, which is I think what that person's alluding to.

Speaker 2 (18:09):
Yeah, exactly, exactly, Yeah, that's I mean, that's exactly what
you'd want to do in this case. Can we move
it to a different planet, Can we move it off?
Can we move it to Mars? Would be it would
be the would be the would the right move because
there's just so there's just been so much pro Karen
Read media and so little. I mean, you know, you

(18:32):
talked about how there are people on both sides on
the street, but very seldom, uh you know, mostly it
was just car you know, Karen read flooding the you know,
free Karen Reid flooding the stores, and they got rid
of the the buffer zone, which I thought was a
terrible move that I have so many issues with the
judge in the criminal case. Luckily, this judge seems pretty

(18:54):
decent fair, So let's start off. I just wanted to
show you how So this is the first televised hearing
in Karen Reid's civil trial, and this is how it
started off. I don't think anything prepares you for this,

(19:18):
Karen Reid and her her here's this lawyers being intrigued.

Speaker 8 (19:25):
In Your attorney Mark Dillon on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Speaker 2 (19:28):
Good afternoon, your honor Dan buck On, behalf of the plaintiffs, Good.

Speaker 9 (19:34):
Afternoon, Your damon seles On, behalf of the friend and Karen.

Speaker 8 (19:37):
Reid definite, and your honor Charles Waters for.

Speaker 9 (19:44):
Good after your honor Alan Jackson on behalf of this
read Aaron Rosenberg. Also on behalf of this read Good Afternoon,
You're on William kep On.

Speaker 8 (19:58):
Jordan out of the defen.

Speaker 2 (20:03):
Universality, and then we get into the lawyers for the bar,
the Waterfall Bar. But it obviously the it seems pretty
obvious what the advantages are to having seven lawyers. You
have more people working on your team, you have more

(20:23):
ideas they can see, perhaps more legal loopholes. But what
are some of the the negatives of having seven lawyers
on your team? And for and and how does that
and how does a duror look at someone who has
seven lawyers representing them?

Speaker 3 (20:40):
So you know, if I'm a plaintiff's attorney and I
see a defense team in front of a jury with
seven lawyers there, I'm probably going to be in the
back of my mind thinking, go for it, guys, because
a lot of jurors are maybe going to think that
person has a lot of money and would be able
to to satisfy any large jury, verdict, award, judgment, whatever.

(21:04):
I honestly so it's funny. When I watched that court hearing, initially,
I was struck by the number of attorneys who got
up and again it may have been that the judge
in that jurisdiction wants to know everyone in the room
who's there for a given party. But normally in court
appearances like that, whoever's going to do the actual talking

(21:26):
is the person who gets up and says something, and
the rest just sit there. And the other thing that
struck me is and this is just more of a
practical thing. And again, I was on the defense side
of the civil world for twenty six years, and you
got six or seven attorneys who are billing by the hour.
That is a huge amount of money that's being spent

(21:46):
to have all of those bodies in the courtroom on
behalf of one defendant. And again you only had only
one lawyer actually said anything after the introductions, the first
fellow whose name is escaping me at the moment, the
South African a great accent. Yes, yes, So you know,
again going to your initial question, is I really don't

(22:10):
think that that plays awfully well in front of a
jury in a civil case. In the end, you know,
when you get this parade of people coming, and I
think it adds to the circus like effect unfortunately, and
distracts things. And I would be very concerned on the
defense side of the world that you know there you

(22:31):
might be turning some people off. I mean it's in
the many, many, many cases I tried over the years
on the defense side of the world, it was rare
that I had more than myself there for my given clients.
Sometimes we had second shares. And again, to be fair,
a large part of that was driven by what the

(22:51):
client and or insurance companies were typically putting the bill
would be willing to pay for. But again goes back
to my earlier point. You got six or seven lawyers
in that courtroom were billing I'm sure inordinate amounts of
money per hour, and then multiply it by the number
of attorneys, and holy smokes, that's a real my personal opinion,

(23:12):
I don't think it's necessary to have all those people there,
especially for an early hearing like that.

Speaker 2 (23:17):
What does a civil lawyer in Massachusetts, what would you
for a range of a fee? What would they charge
for an hour? Would you think would be a reasonable
range of fee?

Speaker 3 (23:30):
Boy, So that's a very good question. I don't practice
in Massachusetts. I've practiced as a defense attorney in New York, Connecticut.
I've handled some federal cases out in the Midwest, and
a lot of that is driven by in the civil
defense world, by insurance company rates. Now, I don't think
that Karen Reid's probably being defended through an insurance policy.

(23:52):
So now you've got people that can charge whatever they
want basically. You know, So for example, if you were
in a medical malpractice case, you see the hospital, the
defense attorneys are being paid by the hospital through their
risk management department and or through an insurance company. You know,
those rates are going to be anywhere from two hudred

(24:13):
and fifty maybe three hundred dollars or so an hour,
depending when you have a circumstance like this, you can
double that easily, maybe even more for what they may
be charging her. I don't know, obviously, I'm not privy
to that what that would be between her and her attorneys,
but man, as a client, I'd be a little concerned

(24:34):
about how much money is being spent on an initial hearing.
I mean, this isn't even like we're there in trial.

Speaker 2 (24:42):
Oh, she's always one step ahead. I mean, she's always
one step ahead.

Speaker 3 (24:46):
That's all I can say something like that.

Speaker 2 (24:47):
Yeah, yeah, you know, we had exchanged messages before the
show and you'd asked me about her attorneys and the
and we know that she had what one lawyer who
was on the criminal team pro bono what I mean,
there are many versions of exactly what pro bono means,

(25:09):
but it's I don't know. I the rumor is that
some of these lawyers are working for free. I don't
know if that's true, not just for the publicity of it.

Speaker 3 (25:21):
I mean maybe so there's certainly obviously a ton of
publicity to be had from this particular case for anybody involved,
you know. And I suppose that could go into someone's
calculation as a defense attorney on her team, you know.
But that's he had a lot of people working in

(25:42):
theory for free. That's and this is a very time
consuming case, you can tell. And it's going to be
even more so given some of the things that the
red team wants to do going forward by way of
the third parties and whatnot. We can talk about in
a few minutes, but I mean, let me fitture this way, Roberta.

(26:02):
I spent much of the last two days working on
a pro bono case where I was I've been appointed
as counsel for a former inmate federal inmate. And that's
been a lot of work just this week alone on
one thing involving one motion. I can't and the amount
of work these folks are putting in on this case
is way more.

Speaker 2 (26:21):
Wow wow the CW. This is a question by murdered
by Maestro, Thank you for moderating. The CW. Refer to
the Reed family helping move Karen Read's vehicle as concealment
of evidence. Could the whole family be sued in this

(26:43):
case murder vehicle?

Speaker 3 (26:48):
So you mean sued by the O'Keefe family.

Speaker 2 (26:53):
Yeah, they went and got it. So she went and
got her car, which from John O'Keefe's and with her family,
and they drove it to her family's home.

Speaker 3 (27:07):
So it's probably not an actionable civil torte claim. So
you've got a wrongful death case. Okay. So the O'Keefe's
attorneys have assued the individuals who could be connected to
causing John o'keef's wrongful death. Whether they moved the car
afterwards or anything else is completely irrelevant. It has no

(27:30):
bearing on what caused his death. So I don't see
that as being a possibility of any type of viable
what we call cause of action against those individuals for
moving the car or you know, concealing evidence or stuff.
Those are those are things that simply don't typically arise
or give rise to tort or civil liability.

Speaker 2 (27:53):
Oh okay, interesting, let's just go into this and then
this hearing gets a little bit. I found this bizarre.
So there was no there's no kind of motion filed.
It was just announced in court. How they want to

(28:16):
bring in third parties into this case. Let's take a
listen to Karen Read's lawyer here.

Speaker 9 (28:23):
Those claims stem from the same facts that I issue
in this case. Those claims Urona are against parties that
are not in the litigation at this point, including the
Massachusetts State Police Lieutenant Brian Tully in his personal capacity,
the Sergeant Uri Buchanic in his personal.

Speaker 3 (28:44):
Capacity, Michael Proctor.

Speaker 9 (28:47):
Those claims would be in the nature of violations of
Karentry's civil rights in conspiracy. The claims against the Massachusetts
State Police would be negligent training, supervision and retention of
Massachusetts State Police troopers. We also intend here to bring

(29:08):
claims affirmative claims against Brian, Albert Nicole, Albert, Matthew McKay,
Jennifer McCabe and Brian Higgins, who are the occupants of
thirty four Fair Year Road in Canton. On the nineteenth question,
those claims will be in the nature of civil conspiracy,
violation of Kory civil rights, and then a claim against

(29:32):
the Town of Canton flu Its police Department for negligent
failure to secure the garage in the Sally Port.

Speaker 3 (29:38):
We asking the court's.

Speaker 9 (29:41):
Permission to bring those claims in this case because they
do arise out of the same nuclears evarperative facts. In
order for us to fairly defend Miss Reid in this case,
those claims those parties need to be asserted in this case.

Speaker 1 (30:00):
What we do, like.

Speaker 2 (30:18):
ROBERTA, Hey, can you hear me now?

Speaker 8 (30:26):
Kay?

Speaker 3 (30:26):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (30:26):
Yeah? So is this normal to here? Is this normal
to bring in as a defendant, to bring in other
third parties as a plaintiff.

Speaker 3 (30:39):
Yes, so it is, And I'll explain. So let's wind
back for a second, because one thing that isn't very
normal is the complaint. The civil complaint filed by the
O'Keefe family was actually filed over a year ago August
twenty sixth I believe of twenty twenty four, and then
there was a stay if you will, or literally as

(31:01):
stay put the civil case because you had this pending
criminal action going on and that had to play out
and et cetera, which happened obviously over the course of
basically the better part of a year with the last
criminal trial, and then you had this conference on September
twenty second of twenty twenty five, and then approximately thirty

(31:23):
days after that, on October twenty first, twenty twenty five,
Karen Reid's attorneys filed their answer to the complaint. The
one thing that's a little unusual is that you're having
a conference before there was actually an answer filed by
the defendant. And the reason for that, though, is because

(31:44):
Karen reids attorneys, in response to the complaint, initially filed
emotion to dismiss a number of the claims in the complaints.
So there was the negligent and infliction of emotional distress claims,
intentional infliction, et cetera. That motion got decided, There was
oral argument at the end of that September twenty second

(32:05):
hearing briefly, and then that motion I believe the decision
was issued October third, which then triggered Karen Reid's attorneys
to serve their answer. So again, it was a little
It happens in the sense that defendants make motions to
dismiss at the very beginning of the case because they
want to knock out elements of a case that shouldn't

(32:26):
be there. Okay, that's common. They aren't required to tell
the defense attorney, excuse me, the defense attorneys, Karen reads
attorneys aren't required to tell the planet's attorney. Oh, by
the way, I may be eventually bringing in the third
party action. But it's typical that you will have those
types of conversations. When in theory the parties had communications,

(32:50):
they would be typically required to have some sort of
you know, informal conference on the phone or zoom or
whatever to talk about for example, the judge refer to
it as a tracking order, which is basically the schedule.
So you know, Karen's attorneys made obviously this very dramatic
display of saying, hey, judge, and you know all the

(33:12):
parties involved, we're planning on bringing in other parties to
this lawsuit, which is not uncommon. That's called a third
party action, where a defendant becomes what's known as a defendant,
third party plaintiff, so now they're basically saying, Okay, plaintiff,
you're claiming that I'm responsible for this individual's death and

(33:34):
the damages that flow from it. But there's other parties
that should be in here that I believe are responsible
somehow for what happened here, which is the typical third
party defense type or you know, third party complaint that
gets filed. So, for example, you have, let's just say
you have a construction work site accident where a plaintiff

(33:56):
who was injured or killed. They sue the general contractor
on the project, and then the general contractor goes and
sues other subcontractors or other entities involved. The oddity of
Karen Reid's attorneys approach is that the people they want
to sue have nothing to do with the wrongful death

(34:20):
of John O'Keeffe. They all come after the fact. This
is the Massachusetts the police, the various representatives, you name it,
the people at thirty four Fairview Road, the Albert's, the McKay's,
and mister Higgins. They're all after the fact. And these
are really While I get that he said these all
arise out of the same facts and circumstances, they don't

(34:44):
in a sense that the claims she's making or wants
to make against the Massachusetts State Police, for example, are
very different claims, including potential federal civil rights claims which
typically get resolved in federal cou which is a whole
other issue of how you litigate if in fact the

(35:05):
judge allows this. So you know, he told them at
the conference on September twenty second that basically you've got
to make emotion under rule fifteen. So Massachusetts pretty much
follows the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and FRCP fifteen
is the one that discovers amendment excuse me, not discovers
that covers amendment of pleadings and motions to amend and

(35:27):
things like that. So and it is I think the
reason why her attorneys are saying, hey, we're talking about
making emotion on this is because of the fact that
it's a very different scenario where the parties Karen Reid
wants to bring in clearly couldn't I shouldn't say couldn't
have caused his death from the conspiracy standpoint in covering up, etc.

(35:50):
Although she's claiming in theory, these people kill them and
therefore they're responsible. So it's a It's a very interesting scenario.
It's what I would jokingly refer to as a law
school question, because in law school your teachers, tourt professors,
constitutional law, whatever. On the exams, they give you these

(36:12):
absolutely convoluted, mixed up sets of facts and make you
figure out, how is this going to work? And this
is one of those.

Speaker 2 (36:20):
Wow. And so that's what I hear. What she wants
to do is really bring this into federal court. So
if he okay, just say thought experiment, if the judge
allowed this motion that we haven't seen yet, that he
says within days. I don't know within days. How many days.

(36:43):
It seems like it keeps being promised and never arriving
this motion. But okay, but say this motion arrives, the
judge accepts it into this case. I think it is madness,
But okay, And is there a way that it could
This judge could say, well, this is really now a
federal case. I'm going to move this case to federal court.

(37:05):
Could it get moved to federal court?

Speaker 3 (37:07):
So in theory it could, or parts of it could.
So here's the okay, the bizarre part again about this.
You've got strictly state court based claims that the O'Keefe
family has brought against the two bars and Karen Reid.
These are all just state based claims. They get litigated
the state court all the time. Karen Reid, at least

(37:27):
based on what her attorney said at the hearing, has
also got some state based claims. But he also said, well,
we've got, you know, civil rights violations, well, a Section
nineteen eighty three civil rights claim against the Massachusetts State Police.
The Massachusetts State Police could seek to remove the case
to federal court and possibly sever out. So again, this

(37:53):
is like a law school question in many ways. There's
so many permutations. Let's say that Judge o'sheay, I believe
this is his name is is okay, file your motion,
and he grants the motion to them for the read
defense team to name all these additional parties in a
third party pleading the defendants, So the Massachusetts State Police,

(38:15):
the all of those other individuals, et cetera. They then
get served with this thing, and then they have an
opportunity to oppose it and or move to dismiss parts
of it, or remove to federal court possibly.

Speaker 6 (38:30):
And.

Speaker 3 (38:32):
I be honest with you, I don't know how that
plays out where you have an initial claim strictly based
in the state you know, tort law, which is the
o'keefes claim. I could envision a judge in federal court saying, well,
wait a second, I'll accept the federal claims, et cetera.

(38:53):
You know that Karen Reid's filing and she, you know,
her attorney alluded to this or stated this. He said, well,
you know, we could just file a whole separate action
to move to consolidate, which okay, fine, But again, if
he files that separate action with federal claims, he's more
than likely going to get that thing removed to federal
court by the defense attorneys that get hired for the
Massachusetts State Police. That's what I would do. That's what

(39:16):
I did in my law enforcement defense days. Whenever we
had claims filed in state court and there was any
federal component to it, we removed it to federal court
because that's where you want to litigate federal claims. And
I could see a federal judge severing out the original
part of it, saying that doesn't belong here. I mean,
the procedural quagmire that this thing is going to get

(39:39):
into is not going to be resolved for a while.
And I know that the judge very much. You know,
he's got his tracking order dates with discovery being done
I think in August next year, in a final pre
track conference February twenty twenty seven. I don't know that
any of that's going to happen, unfortunately, just because of
all this other stuff that's got a kind of get

(40:00):
played out and sort it out. So the easiest thing,
I suppose for the judge in the in the this case,
Judge Josha would be saying, you know what, I'm going
to deny your motion. You go file your your action
in whatever court you want to file it in, and
then do with it what you will. But I'm waiting, curiously,

(40:22):
just like you, to see when are they actually going
to file this. They think their next appearance is, uh,
November November. I want to say the last, the twenty first,
excuse me of November. Yeah, you're right, you're right, Friday
to twenty first, excuse me. I would expect that if
Reed's attorneys are going to be making this motion, they
will be doing it before then, because I could envision

(40:43):
the judge being, hey, wait a minute, you see you
sixty days ago and you said you were going to
do this, where is it?

Speaker 2 (40:51):
And what? And then there was this very uh. This
was from Mark Diller. This is about four minutes of
his presentation. I just wanted to you to take a
look at it.

Speaker 8 (41:04):
JJ no longer has a voice. His life was wrongfully
taken on January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two. He lived
a life of service, he was a Boston police officer,
and his personal life. When JJ's older sister and brother
in law tragically passed two months apart from each other,

(41:25):
leaving two young children orphaned, JJ stepped up. He agreed
to parent those children, to raise them as his own,
and to support them. Fast forward to twenty twenty two
year honor JJ is involved in a relationship with Miss Reid.
It's been going on for a period of time. At
that time January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, Karen drives drunk,

(41:53):
She reverses her SUV. She knocks JJ down. She leads
him to die in the cold, and Reid knows that
she strikes the plaintiff. Rather than seeking to help or
calling nine to one one, she returns to JJ's home.
They are JJ's fourteen year old niece, Kaylee, a plaintiff

(42:14):
in this case, is home alone asleep. That's when Karen
starts plotting. Now it is significant for the facts we
understand the context here. Karen Reid knows Kaylee well. She's
been in her life for almost up.

Speaker 2 (42:31):
To two years.

Speaker 8 (42:32):
She has served as a part time maternal figure in
her life. She knows that Kaylee is a vulnerable child,
having lost two parents tragically, and one to two hours
before JJ's body is ever found, before anybody knows his whereabouts,

(42:55):
Karen Reid decides to wake up Kaylee in a panic.
She tells Kaylee something happened to Jj.

Speaker 2 (43:04):
He's dead.

Speaker 8 (43:05):
He's been hit by a plow. Did I hit him?
All to a fourteen year old child woken up from
sleep's already lost to parents. After provoking this chaos in
the middle of the night, Miss Reid leaves Kaylee alone, vulnerable,
shocked and afraid. It's now one to two hours later.

(43:29):
It's at her around six am in the morning, JJ's
injured body is now found right where Karen left him,
buried in the snow. Nine to one one is called
Now is when JJ's family learns of JJ's injury. JJ's

(43:51):
injuries at this point enter into the O'Keeffe's consciousness at
her around six am. They rush to the hospital.

Speaker 2 (44:01):
It's seven point fifty am.

Speaker 8 (44:03):
That's when the hospital pronounces JJ dead. And within minutes
of being pronounced that, that's when the O'Keefe family sees
their son in the injured state that he was in
as a result of the wrongful conduct. From January twenty
ninth forward, your honor, Karen Reid plug huts. She fabricates

(44:28):
a conspiracy, She launches a public campaign of disinformation, and
she involves a bogan named Turtle Boy.

Speaker 2 (44:36):
She leaks not.

Speaker 8 (44:37):
For public information through him, she pits her followers against
the O'Keefe family, and all the while, Karen knows that
the O'Keefe family is also vulnerable. Grieving another tragedy in
their family, The o'keefes and Kaylee suffer severe emotional stress.

Speaker 2 (45:02):
Okay, so what did you think about what kind of
job you did with that, with those set of facts.

Speaker 3 (45:10):
So he did a very nice job. So first of all,
you know, he paints the picture of who JJ is.
And while that isn't necessarily relevant to the opposition to
the defendant's motion to dismiss certain of the elements of
the complaint, namely negligent and infliction of emotional distress and
intentional infliction of emotional distress and a few other things.

(45:33):
He's doing the right things here and setting up this
very sympathetic figure and which is going to be the
theme of this case going forward for the O'Keefe family.
You're going to hear that, you know, over and over
if it ever gets in front of a jury. You know,
with opening statements, you've just got a little preview of it.

(45:53):
And he did a really nice job with it. And
keep in mind that again, what he's talking about here
are certain elements of time events in relation to time
or temporal events that pertain to what's sustainable at this
phase of a case when the defendant moves to dismiss
portions of a complaint early on, and what isn't And

(46:18):
I really think you did a nice job and talking
about this, and certainly the court for the most part
found in favor of the plaintiffs here in denying most
of the emotion to dismiss, which was certainly good for
the planeffs. And again, this is an early type motion
where you're basically looking at the complaint as pled does

(46:38):
it sufficiently feed a plead excuse me, facts and allegations
necessary to establish the basic elements of the claims you're making.

Speaker 2 (46:48):
So how can you claim negligent emotional distress and intentional
most emotional distress in the same complaint. I mean, if
it's intentional, then it's intentional.

Speaker 3 (47:04):
So it's not uncommon to have them both in one
sense as a plantif attorney, you know, you're covering your bases.
If it was intentional, it's based on this set of facts.
And if that's not sufficient or jury potentially doesn't believe it,
what was certainly negligent infliction of emotional distress? And what
the court was doing here in examining this motion, let

(47:30):
me back up for one second, was the defendants initially said, hey,
wait a second, you can't even have emotional distress claims
because they're alsoubsumed by the wrongful death statute mass jusetts.
The court said, Nope, that's not the case. I'm going
to allow emotional distress claims. Now, let's look at the
individual claims negligent infliction of emotional distress claims and basically said,

(47:52):
as to the family members, you know, they were there
like basically immediately after JJ is pronounced, and because of
the time the temporal relation of those events, their claims
can stand. I mean, I believe the actual language in
the decision was the complaint alleged efficient facts that JJ's
parents and brother arrived promptly at the hospital upon learning

(48:15):
of JJ's death and thus had actionable claims for negligent
infliction of emotional distress. The court dismissed Kaylee's negligent inflection
of emotional distress claim because her stuff comes after the fact,
and basically, there aren't any cases that support or create
any authority to find negligent inflection of emotional distress for

(48:38):
a family member who learns of the death beyond this
kind of immediate timeframe. So that's why her claim for
negligent infliction of emotional distress was dismissed by the court.
And just to cycle back or circle back to the
intentional infliction of emotional distress, Kaylee was the only one
who had that claim in the complaint and that was

(49:00):
based on actions that you know, they allege Karen Reid,
who's taking at the time, she's waking her up and
telling her all these things, and again the plaintiff's attorneys
pled both of these things to basically cover their bases here,
and the court said, you know, there's the way this
has pled the factual scenario their sufficient statements here that

(49:25):
could lead to a finding that Karen Reid intended to
inflict emotional distress or that she knew or should have
known that the emotional distress would be the likely result
of her conduct, which is, you know, another element or
way of which you can establish intentional infliction of emotional distress.
And again, the difference between the two is one you
literally intend to do or you should have known from

(49:47):
your actions it was going to happen, and then the
other is negligence basically, so.

Speaker 2 (49:56):
Right, so you hear, we have this highly traumatized child, Yeah,
her mother, and then shortly thereafter her father, and then
Karen Reid. There was no need for Karen Reid to
do anything but call nine one one, which she never did. Instead,
she's waking up Cayley by shaking her, leaving the room,

(50:17):
coming back with her phone, demanding that she texts, call people,
get numbers, text her uncle. And it's just I would
think that that with a fair minded jewelry. I would
think that would be a strong claim that you would
have to know with the knowing her background, you would

(50:38):
have to know. I mean, it would be another thing
if it were some kind of essential, some kind of
essential way to get help. But there were so many
other ways that Karen Reid. My feeling is that she
never got help for John. Everything she did was to
help herself by bringing in other parties and mixing it

(51:00):
all up and getting other people to call nine one
one so she could later point the finger at their
nine to one one call maybe look suspicious. Yeah, oh,
sort of. I mean it's interesting that this is to me,
that this is the way that she's defending herself again
once more in this civil suit, bring in other parties,
deflect attention away from myself and bring in you know,

(51:24):
when you bring in other people, everybody has faults. Everybody
falls short at one time or another, or maybe does
something that's you know, yeah, isn't the best and so
you but compared to it, and it worked in the
criminal trial at worked.

Speaker 3 (51:40):
So yeah. And you know, one of the interesting things
you know, looking at certainly Kaylee, is is you know,
the most sympathetic of all the plaintiffs here in a sense,
I mean JJ John certainly because he's not here anymore.
But this kid who had lost her parents and you know,
as the court says in its own decision, is a

(52:00):
very vulnerable individual, you know, et cetera, emotionally, you know,
and then to to once something else you touched upon
a moment ago, was, you know, bringing in all these
other people. I mean. Listening to Karen Reid's attorneys, both
in that hearing and obviously in past statements, you know,
they are alleging an incredibly vast conspiracy, if you believe them,

(52:26):
an incredibly vast conspiracy of people doing things to cover
up what they claim actually happened at the Albertsful place,
you know, as a plaintiff attorney, Okay, And if they're
bringing these claims, they are effectively plaintiff's attorneys, you know,

(52:47):
bringing either their third party action in the context of
this wrongful death case, where we're bringing a separate action. Again,
they're going to probably sue for malicious prosecution. That's one thing,
I get it. But all this other stuff is a
whole nother animal. And you have a really high bar

(53:07):
to meet to prove a conspiracy of this grand scale.
I'd be very curious to see what kind of evidence
they have, because you remember, I mean, you played it.
I think at the beginning of our program this evening,
you know, and the Karen Reid and one of her
defense attorneys are being asked, well, who did it, and

(53:28):
they're like, we don't know, we don't know. Somebody else,
somebody else was responsible, but we don't know. And then
later on now they're saying, oh, we know, we know,
everybody knows, and you know it's going to be I
don't know. I think they've I'd be concerned they are
biting off more than, you know, more than they can chew.
I mean, it's one thing to go and say, hey,
we've beat the criminal charges. Now we're going to sue

(53:50):
for malicious prosecution, claiming you shouldn't have prosecuted her in
the first place. Okay, whatever, you know, you can have
into intellectual disagreements on either side of that argument. But
taking it to the next level of this, you know,
vast conspiracy that the I believe her attorney at the
hearing in September said that the Albert's, the McKay's, and
Higgins diverted attention away from them and onto Karen read

(54:16):
such that the law enforcement folks involved, then you know,
bid onto this if you will, and went running in
the complete wrong direction of you know, who the actual
killer was, they claimed, which presumably was Brian Albert, Nicole Albert,
Jennifer McKay, Matthew McKay, or Brian Higgins, because they were
the only other people in the house.

Speaker 2 (54:32):
At the time, right, you.

Speaker 3 (54:34):
Know, but at least that's what I'm assuming they're going
to claim. But good luck proven.

Speaker 2 (54:40):
It, right, I know, I know they actually proved that
it couldn't physically happened, just the timeline. Yeah, you know,
the car was already on the way to the sally
Port when they're finding pieces of retail light. But very
much like Garrett Phillips, like the Garrett Phillips case. I was,
you know, I was looking at a video of you

(55:00):
on YouTube, just you know, you're talking about your work,
and right under it they're talking of someone's leaving a
comment related to the alternate suspect. You know that's also
been proved. He was on a video walking his dog
in that game. Couldn't be. It doesn't matter that it's

(55:22):
physically impossible.

Speaker 3 (55:24):
To touch on that for a moment, Roberta to touch
on that for a moment, So put the video aside
for a second. Nick Hillary his supporters all of the
reasons why they claimed it couldn't have been Nick. Okay,
for all, each and every one of those reasons they
claim it couldn't have been Nick, they apply even more
so for John Jones. No fingerprints of his John Jones

(55:49):
is DNA did and Nick Hillary, we know about his DNA,
but you know, John Jones' DNA didn't match anything. And
then yeah, he's on three or four different video cameras
walking his dog at the time with the murder, you know.
And I was just telling someone this story the other day.
By the way, Roberta, where forgive me because I don't

(56:09):
recall the press outlet. I was a reporter who was
certainly in nixed camp, shall we say. And this was
in I want to say, August twenty sixteen, approximately a
month prior to the criminal trial in that case. And
one of Nick's attorneys had had given a statement to
either North Country Now or the news paper up there

(56:30):
when he said that John Jones and Garrett Phillips had
this argument slash altercation out in the street on Cottage
Street and Potsdam, you know, fifteen minutes before the murder
takes place. And I played for her the security camera
footage from the hospital that showed Garrett Phillips ripsticking his

(56:51):
way down the street and out into oblivion, and John
Jones eventually pulling into this driveway, and the two never
even passing one another, let alone speaking to one on
the other. I can still remember she said, Oh my god,
why would they have lied to us about that? I
so you got to ask them anyway what they do.

Speaker 2 (57:12):
It's what they do in these innocents broad campaigns, and
people believe them. And it's just amazing how much the
jury did not follow. I mean, there's so much evidence
in this case. Dean Walker, thank you very much for
the supersticker kitties. Thanks for being a member. Turn my
volume up. It's up. It's up now. Thank you for

(57:33):
learning me to it. I wanted to ask you about
her pleading the fifth in this case, and I also
have a question about I thought the way that she
was going to go, just because I'm so familiar with
innocent fraud and how it works. Usually they clean up

(57:55):
in our civil courts with a claim of something like
militia prosecution. In this case, she was found guilty of
driving drunk, so they can't say that she was held
against her or they you know, limited her right to
movement or whatever. I know there's another word for.

Speaker 3 (58:17):
That, but you know, unlawfully detained.

Speaker 2 (58:20):
Yeah, unlawfully detained. So howl, what kind of things do
you have to prove in malicious execution?

Speaker 3 (58:30):
So, you know, much like the name implies, you have
to prove that this prosecution was undertaken maliciously, meaning they
didn't have and they should have known that they didn't
have a viable basis to bring the claims. I mean,
there's the case laws legion on in federal claims of
proving and disproving malicious prosecution. But it's also again it's

(58:55):
somewhat of a high bar for the planeiff. I mean, look,
she was acquitted on the criminal charges related to the murder.
We know that she got convicted on the drunk driving charges.
You know, it's I think, in the end, much like
you know, Nick Hillary did the same thing after his acquittal.
He brought malicious prosecution claims against everybody and their brother.

(59:17):
Every single one of them was dismissed. In fact, every
single claim Nick brought in any civil suit anywhere was
eventually dismissed, either by a judge or a jury. So
you know, I think Karen's going to have a tough time.
You mentioned at the beginning about pleading the fifth, and
I'm not sure I caught all that. What were you
asking about that?

Speaker 2 (59:38):
So in this case, can she plead the fifth on
the stand? They can't try her again? Obviously, what options
does she have for completing the fifth? Does she have
to take the stand?

Speaker 3 (59:52):
So very good question. So number one, again, she was
acquitted on the criminal charges relating to the murder, can't
be proscuted again, double jeopardy. And then she's convicted of
the drunk driving charge, and if I recall correctly, I
don't think she appealed anything in relation to that. So
that stands. So there isn't any basis by which I

(01:00:14):
can see that she could viably plead the fifth because
there's no jeopardy that she could be placed in for anything,
anything that I can think of at all. And the
problem she has pleading the fifth, let's just assume that's
something that she does. Is you know, in civil cases,

(01:00:36):
especially again, if she files malicious prosecution, and various other
claims against the Massachusetts State Police and its members and
various other individuals in civil cases. I know this is
a double negative. In my English teacher, Missus Siler from
elementary school, would be mad at me. You can't not testify,

(01:00:57):
you know, if you plead the fifth in civil cases,
it's going to be it's going to be a big
problem for you. You're gonna you're gonna basically have it held
against you in a bad way. Unlike you know, the
criminal side where you pleading the fifth, it can't be
held against you. Blah blah blah. We all know that stuff.
And in the civil world it can really in bite you.

(01:01:18):
And then you know what, and again for her as
a plaintiff, and this was the same thing that you
know happened with Nick Hillary in his civil cases, was
he had to testify. If he didn't testify on his
own behalf in claims civil claims that he brought. And
again if she doesn't, you know, she takes the fifth

(01:01:39):
and refuses to testify on civil claims that she eventually
brings those places, those claims will get dismissed. So I
don't see any path for her to do it, especially
given the fact that the criminal charges have all been
resolved and there's no jeopardy for her. So I don't
see a legal basis by which she could. And I'm

(01:02:00):
not a criminal attorney, but still I just don't see it.

Speaker 2 (01:02:06):
Yeah, so she's going to have to take the stand
or I'm oh yeah, oh wow.

Speaker 3 (01:02:11):
It's like Ojay when he was a defendant, you know,
in the Goldman family and wrongful death cases. You know,
after he was acquitted, he had to testify. She's going
to have to do the same thing. And I can
you can be rest assured they're going to video take
those step positions, and I'm sure they'll be ending up
on TMZ or something somewhere.

Speaker 2 (01:02:32):
Oh definitely, Oh definitely. And curious thing at the end
of this hearing, he said, this kind of goes into
Maestro's question, which is would you want to how would
you try this? Knowing the cameras are there? They said,
do you want to do this on zoom or do
you want to do this in person? They all wanted

(01:02:53):
to do the defense wanted to do this in person.

Speaker 10 (01:02:57):
The the the vicevers it was vice versa, so well,
the judge was simply talking about was the November twenty
first next court hearing, And it was simply a matter of.

Speaker 3 (01:03:08):
Hey, folks, you know we if you all want to
do it on zoom, that's fine, so we don't all
have to pile into the courthouse. It was merely the
judge being trying to all the attorneys and saying, let's
you know, if it's easier for you all to do
it on zoom, let's do it on zoom. Otherwise, if
you really want to be here in person, fine, we'll
do it in person. And I believe the defense attorney,

(01:03:31):
if I recall, said I'm agnostic on this, and the
judge said you're agnostic. He says, yeah, I don't care
whatever you want to do. And that was.

Speaker 2 (01:03:40):
Karents attorneys who all wanted to come out.

Speaker 3 (01:03:43):
They wanted to come now. Yeah, No, Karen's attorneys wanted
it in person. Yeah, because they want the publicity.

Speaker 2 (01:03:49):
Absolutely absolutely. So is there anything I mean, have you
ever tried a case on that it's been broadcast? And
what do you think about cases that are broadcast? And
how would you adjust river a case?

Speaker 3 (01:04:05):
So New York is a little bit arcing in a
sense that it is exceedingly rare to have cameras in
the courtroom. We had them in the courtroom for a
period of time about early part of my legal career
in the nineties and I want to say around two
thousand or so, there was a sunset provision in the

(01:04:25):
law and they allowed it the sunset for reasons I
do not know. And then after that, generally speaking, you
have to have extraordinary circumstances to allow cameras and they
will typically only allow them for parts of a trial,
usually closings and openings or openings and closings. The only
case I had on the civil side of the world

(01:04:46):
that we had that was back in twenty ten. I
was involved in a seven week trial up in Lake George,
New York that involved the hadlock pond DAMN failure and
the it was effectively like the Hurricane Katrina for that
small community up there. Okay, so it got a lot

(01:05:06):
of local press and TV cameras were there during the
opening arguments, TV cameras there during closings, and the gallery
was packed with the reporters during the bulk of the trial.
It doesn't change for me, okay, personally, it doesn't change
what I do I'm going to go in there. I'm
going to try my case. It doesn't matter what the
gallery thinks. It matters what the folks in the jury

(01:05:28):
box think. And you know, eventually they're not paying attention
either to typically hopefully they're not paying attention to what's
going on in the gallery, and you want them if
you're doing your job properly, they're paying attention to you
and not people watching.

Speaker 2 (01:05:46):
Yeah, yeah, that's true. True one were I mean, let
me see, let me see. We know that Karen read.
This is the last clip I have to show you.
You went on her. South African lawyer Damon Seligson went
on Howie Carr's radio show and am I all the way?

(01:06:11):
Yeah okay, and he said that they're going to file
these motions against everyone.

Speaker 1 (01:06:16):
Okay, very soon, that's the answer we file. We have,
as we alluded to in court at the last hearing
in September, we are well underway in terms of bringing
to the court's attention our efforts to bring in the
folks that we believe are responsible for the malicious prosecution
and who are responsible for John o'keie's death. And that's imminent.

Speaker 3 (01:06:37):
I can tell you that, oh what you mean eminent?

Speaker 1 (01:06:39):
Are you you mean a court filing or what exactly
are you talking about? So what do you typically do
when when you're a defendant in a civil case such
as this and a wrong for death action, for example,
and you're claiming that you know other parties should be
brought into the lawsuit? What you have claims? You typically
have to You typically file them at the time of
your answer, and you would typically say, if I have
counterclaims against the plaintiffs, you bring your answer and assert counterclaims.

(01:07:01):
We do not have counterclaims against the o Ki family,
or you have cross claims against the existing defendse We
do not have cross claims against the two talents. What
we are going to be bringing in imminently are is
a motion with an attached complaint to add other parties
to the complaint to the lawsuit in line with that
affirmative defense that you read to your audience. That's a
piece of what's coming. We're working on it, and within
days we will have this served on all of those parties.

(01:07:24):
They will have an opportunity to respond, and hopefully it
will be in front of the judge o'shay in advance
of the next hearing on the twenty first of November.

Speaker 2 (01:07:32):
Okay, so he says it's coming. He says it's coming.
I mean, what are the chances, just knowing how much
of this has been played out in the court of
public opinion and in the media, what are the chances
that they never filed it? Is there a chance that

(01:07:52):
they never.

Speaker 3 (01:07:52):
Filed as I think that answers somewhere between zero and
five percent that they never filed. I think they're going
to file, you know, at a minimum, they're going to
file a malicious prosecution claim. Whether or not they include
all of the other conspiracy theories and things that they

(01:08:13):
alluded to and mentioned in the September twenty second hearing,
I don't know. And to pick up on what he
was talking about, you know there there and the court
talked about this a little bit in that here in
September is There's are a couple different ways you can
go about doing this again. There's one one way, Karen
Reid's attorneys can file a separate action against all of

(01:08:33):
these folks in Massachusetts State Court and try to get
it consolidated with this existing action. They would have to
file emotion to consolidate or join these things together. Again,
there may also be issues of removing to federal court,
or they can go the path of which is what
it sounds like he was talking about on Howie Carr Show,

(01:08:56):
was they're going to file what's called a third party action.
So again and he Saliman said, you know, you can
assert as a defendant counterclaims against the plaintiff. They don't
have any, so they can't do that. They can assert,
which they already did, and they answer something called affirmative defenses.
And affirmative defenses are literally what their name implies. Their defenses.

(01:09:16):
You are, as a defendant, are affirmatively stating and claiming
for which you believe you're not responsible for what happened,
or you claim the plaintiff was somehow responsible or whatever.
And then and because they have an affirmative defense of, hey,
we believe other parties are responsible, to elaborate on that
and actually put it into a pleading, you would bring

(01:09:39):
a third party action. So it would be Keeps versus
the Bars and Karen Reid, and then Karen Reid as
what's called the defendant third party plaintiff versus you know,
this litany of entities. And then you have to serve
that on all of those entities and individuals, and then
they have an opportunity to respond with their motions to

(01:10:01):
dismiss motion, removing it possibly to federal court, or severing
the third party action removing it. I mean, it's, like
I mentioned earlier, it's going to be procedurally quite an
interesting quagmire depending on the claims asserted. You know, a
malicious prosecution claim is strictly a state court claim. A

(01:10:22):
violation of civil rights is typically a federal nineteen eighty
three claim, and that typically litigate in federal court. I mean,
it can be litigated in state court, but normally as
a defendant, if you have an opportunity to remove a
case to federal court, you do because you generally want
federal judges dealing with federal questions. So anyway, probably way

(01:10:43):
longer of an answer than you needed.

Speaker 2 (01:10:44):
No, And it looks like just I don't know. I'm
curious to see who's what kind of judges are sitting
in federal court in Massachusetts. Curious how they would would
take these claims. The other thing I wanted to ask,
and it's about Karen Reids says she the o'keefes have

(01:11:08):
unclean hands. What does that mean? And what can you
the logic behind that defense?

Speaker 3 (01:11:17):
So, which is interesting. So it's an affirmative defense that
they stayed in their answer. And typically as a defendant
in civil cases, two things. One, you deny almost everything
that's in the complaint. If they allege two plus two
is four, you deny it. You know, almost everything gets denied.
That's very common. Second thing is affirmative defenses. As a

(01:11:38):
defense attorney, you want to throw out every single possible,
remotely applicable affirm of defense that can be there, because
if you don't assert one, you can be barred from
making that claim at some later date, you know, at trial,
and especially so unclean hands is essentially what you're saying is, hey,
wait a minute. While plaintiff you were saying saying I'm

(01:12:00):
responsible for this individual's death and the damages that were caused,
you're also responsible in some manner or form. It's a
very generic thing. But compare and contrast that to what
Sellingman said into Howie Carr interview of well, we don't
have counter claims against the plaintiffs here. We're not claiming

(01:12:22):
anything against the plaintiffs. Here, which is again, a counterclaim
is technically a different thing than an affirm of defense.
It's where you are affirmatively making claim back against the
plaintiff for your own damages, which happens in some civil cases,
not really applicable in one like this, But it's just
interesting to hear the juxtaposition of, hey, plane, if you

(01:12:43):
have uncleaned hands and wait a minute, we're not asserting
any counterclaims against them. So, while yes, they are legally
technically different things, they're kind of like twin sisters, you know,
they ride around together legally, if you will. So it
was just interesting to hear that.

Speaker 2 (01:13:01):
Yeah, it's odd, right, yeah, odd, odd, odd, very Karen,
Does anybody have any questions before before I head off?
I think I missed one from again from eister. I
think I missed one hold on one second? Did Tom represent?

Speaker 8 (01:13:18):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:13:18):
Here we go? Did Tom? Didn't Tom represent New York
police officials? Has he seen anything like Michael Proctor's personal
messages being brought in as evidence? Do you I don't
know how familiar are with the Karen Reid case. Do
you know about Michael Proctor? He had used his personal

(01:13:38):
phone and then all his personal messages to his friends.
His buddies on a group texts came in and they
were very not complimentary towards Karen Reid. He's talking about
her body and her being a whack job. Yeah, Tuesday
and that guy.

Speaker 3 (01:13:55):
I remember it generically hearing about it or reading about
it friend of the press, things that I either read
or saw. I remember that. To back up, so the
person asked the question, I've never represented the state police.
They are in New York at least, the state Police
are typically represented through the New York State Attorney General's Office,

(01:14:16):
and the members of the State Police are usually represented
also through the AG's office, although sometimes you have a
circumstance where there's arguably a conflict of interest, so the
individual member will have a private council. All of my
law enforcement cases, I was representing sheriff's departments, city police departments,

(01:14:38):
things like that. So I didn't represent the state Police.
That said, in the context of that criminal case, because
of you know, discovery obligations and stuff. You know, basically
everything that everything that he was doing on his phone
related to the case became discoverable and fodder or the

(01:15:00):
defense team to use, and it will surely be part
of the whatever aspect of civil case, Karen Reid eventually
brings that he's a defendant then, certainly because the discovery rules,
by the way, in civil you know, you get not
only do will they get to depose. So again, if
Karen read whether she brings it as a third party

(01:15:22):
action or she brings it as a separate action, Karen
Reid ultimately would get her attorneys would get to depose
these people under oath. You know, in a criminal case,
they don't necessarily DA's office doesn't necessarily have to put
them on the stand, and they might not be directly
relevant to a defendants claim. So and they'll get to
you know, see all this stuff ultimately, and whether it's

(01:15:44):
going to be relevant in front of a jury is
a whole other issue because again it's you know, after
the fact stuff. Although I think Karen Reid's team will
claim it was part of this whole law enforcement cabal
that they've alluded to think conspiracy.

Speaker 2 (01:16:01):
Yeah, yeah, Bunny, do anybody else have anything else before
I before I head on out, because I think that
I mean, this is I think it's a pretty fascinating
case to watch. It seems like, oh here Patricia has one. Uh,

(01:16:24):
does Tom have an opinion on Judge Bev's judging. Did
you watch any of the either trial?

Speaker 3 (01:16:30):
Oh you're talking to criminal trials. No, I only saw snippets.
I did not do any type of deep dive into watching.
So I know read stuff and various people have said
this stuff about the criminal trial judge. I don't have
enough information. It's say one thing or another.

Speaker 2 (01:16:50):
It's interesting because it's the one thing I think that
both sides agree on, the Karen Reid supporters and the
Karen Reid non supporters agree on, is that this judge
was awful. I think for different reasons for we both.
And she moved from criminal court, she's now in civil court.

(01:17:10):
So my fear was that she would be presiding over
this case. Thought, oh not again. You know, so it's
nice to have a different judge who's a little bit
more fair to it looks like to both sides. Tom
or Toddy, thank you so much for doing this. I

(01:17:32):
really appreciate it, and I know people in the chat
appreciated it. You really explain a lot of complex things
in a way that everybody can understand.

Speaker 3 (01:17:40):
Well, you're welcome, and this case is obviously going to
be going on for a while, and it's sort of
going to become, in some sense, you know, a legal
car wreck at the side of the road. Everyone's going
to stop and watch this thing, including you and me.

Speaker 2 (01:17:55):
It may be the first or one of the first,
I guess, since Johnny Depp, the first trial that will
be broadcast with much fanfare.

Speaker 3 (01:18:03):
Yeah, yeah, I think you're right about that. So hey,
well listen, I look forward. I'm sure we'll have an
opportunity to talk more because you know, and I know,
there's gonna be twists and turns on this legal path,
especially with all this procedural stuff that should be coming
up in the near future.

Speaker 2 (01:18:17):
Actually for sure, tell Mer Tottie, thanks so much, and everyone,
thanks so much for listening. Please set the thumbs up
on your way out. Have a great night, everybody.

Speaker 3 (01:18:26):
Take care of ROBERTA nice talking to you again.

Speaker 2 (01:18:28):
Bye, talking to you. Hi. Hit my boyfriend with my car.

Speaker 7 (01:18:41):
It wasn't an accident, but with Lion lawyers, I'll go far.

Speaker 2 (01:18:48):
Lion lawyers and.

Speaker 11 (01:18:50):
Witness harass men, holl avoid prison.

Speaker 6 (01:18:56):
It was so.

Speaker 12 (01:19:00):
I pushed the paintle down, hit him Hart.

Speaker 6 (01:19:06):
Now the legal.

Speaker 12 (01:19:07):
System my client.

Speaker 7 (01:19:16):
Innocence Frog campaign to save my skin making money truths.
My second victim.

Speaker 11 (01:19:28):
Carry carry gentle like John you were Mama. My innocence
for a campaign is my biggest.

Speaker 6 (01:19:41):
That I hid.

Speaker 2 (01:20:07):
My boyfriend with my coat.

Speaker 3 (01:20:14):
It wasn't an ass s.

Speaker 12 (01:20:20):
Both Lion lawyers I'll go far Lion lawyers and Windness harassment,
I'll avoid prison.

Speaker 6 (01:20:32):
It was snowing. I pushed the pedal down, hit him hard.

Speaker 7 (01:20:38):
Now the legal system of my claim.

Speaker 12 (01:20:45):
In sense from a campaign to save my skin.

Speaker 7 (01:20:52):
Making loney truth It is my second victim carry carrying
ginger like Joge.

Speaker 6 (01:21:02):
Youre my bark.

Speaker 12 (01:21:04):
My innocence broadcampaign is my thing?

Speaker 6 (01:21:08):
Is it it