LIVE | TikTok Psychic Trial, Judgment and what comes next. Plus an unexpected lawsuit.

In the TikTok psychic case, the court granted summary judgment on liability, meaning the judge determined the defendant's statements were indeed defamatory as a matter of law. This shifted the trial's focus entirely to quantifying the damages caused, rather than debating the truthfulness or defamatory nature of the original statements.

The host explains the difference between a motion to dismiss (looking at allegations) and summary judgment (looking at evidence). The judge at summary judgment stated, 'there is no dispute of fact. You said what you said. what you said is defamation. Period.'

The jury awarded the plaintiff $10 million in total damages, which included $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $7.5 million in punitive damages. This amount hit the statutory cap for such damages in Idaho, indicating the jury's strong condemnation of the defendant's actions.

The special verdict form shows $1 million compensatory and $2.5 million punitive for the affair claim, and $1.5 million compensatory and $5 million punitive for the murder orchestration claim, totaling $10 million. The host confirms this amount hit the Idaho statutory cap.

Punitive damages are not just about compensating the victim but are intended to punish the defendant and send a broader message to society that certain behaviors are unacceptable. In this case, the large punitive award signals a strong stance against online defamation and the spread of baseless accusations.

Emily D. Baker states, 'Punitive damages are find out. They are meant to be punishment. They are meant to be knock this [expletive] off. This is unacceptable in our society.' She emphasizes it sends a signal to the defendant and others that 'this [expletive] is unacceptable. And if you want to [expletive] around, you're going to find out.'

A substantial monetary judgment in a defamation case can effectively combat the initial harm by overwhelming negative search engine results. The high-profile nature of a large verdict ensures that information about the plaintiff's vindication and the defendant's liability becomes more prominent than the original defamatory content.

The host explains, '10 million grabs enough headlines that it starts to undo all of the search engine stories connecting the professor's name to something she did not do. 10 million now overwhelms the stories.'

Despite a summary judgment on liability and a $10 million jury verdict, the Tik Tocker continues to assert the professor fabricated damages, lied under oath, and presented false evidence. She frames herself as a victim of 'persecution' and compares the legal process to the Salem witch trials, refusing to acknowledge the validity of the judgment or her own actions.

The Tik Tocker filed a motion for relief of judgment due to fraud, alleging the professor 'lied about having damages,' 'presented false evidence,' and 'fabricated medical records.' She also stated, 'This case appears to be a 2026 rendition of the Salem witch trials in 1692.'

The professor's legal team requested significantly lower attorney's fees and costs than expected for a multi-year federal defamation trial. The lead attorney billed at $400/hour, 'well below her regular rates,' and total costs were only $1,722. This suggests a compassionate approach by the legal team, prioritizing justice for the professor over maximizing billable hours, despite the extensive and frivolous litigation tactics employed by the Tik Tocker.

Attorney Olsen billed at $400 per hour, 'well below her regular rates.' The total request for attorney's fees was $163,000, and costs were $1,722.61, which the host described as 'incredibly low' and 'not realistic' for a federal trial of this duration.

The Tik Tocker initiated a new lawsuit against the IRS, claiming racial discrimination led to false accusations of tax fraud, withholding of tax refunds, and retaliatory audits. She alleges the IRS disproportionately affects Black taxpayers and that her 2021 and 2024 tax refunds were improperly withheld after she sought COVID sick leave tax credits for her 'brick-and-mortar' business.

The Tik Tocker's complaint states the IRS 'used Tik Tocker's race to falsely accuse her of submitting a false tax return for the year 2021' and 'withheld the 2024 tax refund.' She claims the IRS 'admitted that their processes were disproportionately negatively affecting black taxpayers.'

The case highlights that even a decisive legal victory does not immediately end the 'fallout' for a victim of online defamation. The Tik Tocker's continuous appeals and new lawsuits mean the professor remains in a state of 'pending litigation' for years, enduring ongoing stress and professional repercussions. The host emphasizes that this prolonged legal battle is a direct consequence of the Tik Tocker's initial defamatory actions and subsequent refusal to cease.

The host states, 'The professor is still dealing with the fallout and is going to continue to deal with the fallout... living with the stress of pending litigation for years. Yeah. That has a that has a cost. Online harassment has a cost.'

The TikToker has filed a lawsuit against the IRS, demanding an $11,555 tax refund, $2,311 for an 'erroneous fraud penalty,' and $27,341 in 'actual direct economic damages.' The IRS, in its defense, denies accepting the tax return on the date claimed by the TikToker, states a refund freeze was put in place, and an examination began months later. Crucially, the IRS argues the TikToker did not follow proper administrative procedures for challenging the $2,311 penalty, and denies her entitlement to the claimed direct economic damages.

The TikToker's complaint seeks specific amounts: $11,555 (refund), $2,311 (penalty), and $27,341 (economic damages). The IRS's answer denies the acceptance date, notes a refund freeze on February 15, 2024, and an examination starting October 25, 2024. The IRS also states, 'To the extent pliff is entitled to a refund, she is not entitled to a refund of the $2,311 penalty because she has not filed an administrative refund claim seeking such relief.'

Host Emily D. Baker speculates that if the TikToker successfully obtains any funds from her lawsuit against the IRS, those funds could immediately become targets for garnishment by the plaintiff (the 'professor') in the recently concluded $10 million defamation case. This highlights a potential avenue for the defamation judgment to be satisfied, leveraging one legal battle to resolve another.

Emily D. Baker states, 'If I were Scoffield's attorneys, I would probably file garnishment because if she's owed any of this money, I would probably try to grab it.' She adds, 'Maybe there's a silver lining to suing the IRS. Like you get the refund, but it immediately gets garnished.'

The upcoming sentencing of Brendan Banfield on May 8th is framed as a critical moment for justice, particularly for the victim's families who will have the opportunity to deliver impact statements. The host, Emily D. Baker, emphasizes the importance of Judge A's final words before retirement, drawing a parallel to Judge A's impactful statement in a previous case ('May it weigh heavy on your soul'). This discussion underscores the role of judges in delivering justice and providing closure, and the host's broader advocacy for transparency and ethical conduct in the judiciary.

Emily D. Baker states, 'We will get to see Judge A again before Judge A retires and that we will continue to see Joseph Ryan's name cleared in all of this.' She also quotes Judge A's previous statement, 'May it weigh heavy on your soul,' and questions, 'What is she going to say to Banfield?' The host declares May 8th 'International Laward Cookie Day' to mark the event.