Yeah, I mean, the defense's whole, like, idea pre-trial was to, in my opinion, use motion

hearings as, I'd call them like a speaking motion normally, where it's a very precisely

little term of art, but it kind of means like you're writing an indictment or a motion, but you're really speaking to the public with it.

And it's a thing that people do.

I mean, it's it's it's it's it is a thing.

A speaking indictment or a speaking motion is a term of art.

But for a defendant to do it and the way that it was done by relying on basically a bootstrapped federal probe that

Karen Reed, in my opinion, was able to get going in November of 2022, kind of implying, of course,

that this was sort of at issue in the case, the federal probe. And then the most subversive thing I think that happened

was really that Reed's lawyers, David Dunetti and Alan Jackson, leaked information about

the federal probe to Turtle Boy right around between April 20th and May 3rd of 2023,

and then went into court and referred to their own leaks as if they were reported by a turtle boy. And the reason

that's a big deal, of course, is because the rules of professional conduct explicitly prohibit

doing that kind of thing. If you can't release something as a lawyer, you can't give it to the

press, then come into court and reference the report that you were the source of. And the Commonwealth has actually alleged in one of their filings, I think it was the

opposition to the defense's motion to dismiss.

That was the motion was eventually denied.

The Commonwealth has asked for a colloquy between Reed and the judge.

Basically having the judge say to read, you're not going to be able to use an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on appeal if your lawyers violated these rules of

professional conduct and you knew about it, which I think goes to the heart of this. Reed didn't

have a trial strategy. She had a pretrial, poison the jury strategy through her familial connections

to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

...