Taylor Frankie Paul Not Charged. What Happens now? Plus TikTok Psychic keeps objecting.

The Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office declined to file charges against Taylor Frankie Paul (TFP) following investigations into alleged domestic violence incidents with Dakota Mortonson (DM). Reasons cited include some incidents being beyond the statute of limitations (over 2 years old for misdemeanors, some over 3 years old), other alleged incidents not rising to the level of criminal offenses, and remaining incidents lacking sufficient evidence, specificity, or corroboration to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The DA's office sent declination letters to the Draper and West Jordan Police Departments. A press release from the DA's office, reported by People.com, explicitly stated that 'no additional individuals were screened for charges in connection with these investigations,' clarifying that DM was not screened either.

The decision not to file new charges against TFP is significant because the DA's office is also not pursuing a probation violation related to the February incident. This indicates that whatever TFP allegedly did in February did not meet the lower standard required for a probation violation, despite her being on probation for a previous domestic violence felony. This outcome will substantially change the dynamics of her upcoming child custody and restraining order hearings with DM.

People.com reported that the DA's press release confirmed 'the investigations would not affect Paul’s probation status stemming from a previous 2023 arrest and indictment.' Emily D. Baker emphasizes that a probation violation has a much lower burden of proof than criminal charges, making this decision particularly telling.

Emily D. Baker highlights a critical issue in media reporting by comparing KUTV's coverage of the TFP case with People.com's. KUTV's headline and initial reporting omitted the crucial word 'several' from the DA's statement, leading readers to believe that *all* alleged incidents did not rise to a criminal offense, rather than just some. This subtle but significant omission distorts the factual basis of the DA's decision and can create unnecessary public friction.

KUTV reported, 'the incidents did not rise to the level of criminal offenses,' while the actual DA letter stated, 'several incidents that were submitted do not rise to the level of criminal offenses.' Baker demonstrates how this changes the meaning, potentially misleading the public.

The 'TikTok Psychic' (TTS) has successfully docketed her appeal of the $10 million defamation judgment in the Ninth Circuit. However, she faces significant financial obligations, including ordering and paying for the trial transcripts and potentially posting a judgment bond. These costs can be substantial, and it is unlikely her existing fee waivers will cover them, especially for transcripts which involve paying court reporters.

The Ninth Circuit scheduling order indicates deadlines for the appeal transcript order (April 20th) and the appeal transcript itself (May 20th). Emily D. Baker estimates transcripts could cost 'thousands of dollars' and questions whether TTS will attempt to seek a fee waiver for these costs.

In her response to the professor's motion for attorney's fees, TTS reiterates claims of fraud, perjury by witnesses, and jury bias, arguing that the court should deny fees because the professor acted in 'bad faith' and the verdict was 'unreasonable.' These arguments are legally unfounded, as the jury already found defamation and awarded punitive damages, indicating the court found TTS's actions vexatious.

TTS's filing states, 'Court should deny plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees because it is not in the best interest of justice. The plaintiff acted in bad faith during trial and the litigation...' and 'plaintiff and her witnesses acted in bad faith and used improper tactics to win the case i.e. perjury.' Baker points out that these are conclusory statements lacking proper legal citation to transcripts.