LIVE | Alex Murdaugh Motion & Order. Kouri Richins Lawyers' leave? TikTok Psychic Order.

Nick Reiner, accused of murdering his parents, has filed a motion in probate court to access a trust fund established for him in 1993, prior to his parents' deaths. This pre-funded trust is distinct from an estate, meaning the California Slayer statute (which prevents murderers from inheriting from their victims' estates) may not apply. Reiner's legal team is arguing he should have received these funds two years ago when he turned 30 and is seeking to replace the current third-party trustee with Jodie Montgomery, known for her role in Britney Spears' conservatorship.

Nick Reiner... has made a motion in probate court to get access to his trust. This is a trust fund that was established separate and apart from any estate trust. ... the California version of the Slayer statute that we saw in Utah doesn't really apply here because this is not funds that are coming from the estate after death... they are also trying to remove that executive of the trust and bring in um Jody McGomery.

Corey Richins' defense team (Wendy Lewis, Katherine Nester, and Alexander Ramos) has filed a motion to withdraw from her pending financial crimes case, which includes charges like money laundering and mortgage fraud. They explicitly state that Summit County has not contracted them for this specific matter and that they believe Richins' interests would be 'best served by the appointment of other counsel.' The host notes that these attorneys did not seem 'deeply in tuned with the nuances of financial crime' during the murder trial.

Council for defendant Wendy Lewis, Katherine Nester, and Alexander Ramos respectfully move this court for an order permitting them to withdraw as council of record for the defendant Cory Richens in the above captioned matter. ...Summit County has not contracted with council to represent defendant in this matter. ...these defense attorneys did not seem um deeply in tuned with the nuances of financial crime.

Following the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision to overturn Alex Murdaugh's murder conviction, Judge Deborah R. McCastlin has been appointed with 'exclusive jurisdiction' over all general session matters, trials, civil forfeiture actions, and motions related to his murder charges. This means Judge McCastlin will preside over the case regardless of any potential change of venue, ensuring continuity. The prosecution aims for a retrial by the end of 2026, while the defense suggests 2027, acknowledging the lengthy procedural steps involved.

the Supreme Court has now appointed a new judge... the honorable Deborah R. McCastlin... be vested with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and depose of all general session matters... Judge McCasslin's jurisdiction includes jurisdiction over any future retrial on the murder charges and any related matters. ...Attorney General Alan Wilson has said that he wants this to go to trial by the end of 2026. ...the defense has said they would like to see this go to trial in 2027.

The Attorney General has filed a motion to retract its conditional objection and unseal the in-camera hearing transcript concerning the removal of Juror 785 (the 'egg lady juror') from Alex Murdaugh's original murder trial. This motion seeks to remove all prior restrictions on sharing and discussing these proceedings. The host highlights that Juror 785 herself previously sought to unseal these records, potentially for a book deal, and expresses suspicion about the clerk of court's shifting reasons for the juror's removal, suggesting a potential effort to target a juror perceived as sympathetic to Murdaugh.

leads motion to retract conditional objection and unseal and remove restrictions as to the inc camera hearing transcript supporting juror 785's removal. ...the juror themselves asked for the hearing where they were removed to be unsealed. ...Becky RN and a few of you said Ed Jur was writing a book at this time. ...it seemed that perhaps clerk of court Becky was, you know, shifting gears on trying to figure out what it would be to remove this juror. That's my suspicion.

The court denied the TikTok psychic's Rule 60B3 motion, which sought to overturn the $10 million judgment based on claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and misconduct by the plaintiff. The court found no clear and convincing evidence for these allegations, stating they were merely disagreements with the jury's assessment of evidence and credibility.

The court concluded the defendant had not established entitlement to relief under Rule 60B3, stating, 'Defendants's disagreement with the jury's evaluation of the medical evidence does not establish entitlement to relief.'

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, though not the full requested amount, because the defendant's defense was deemed frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation. Her repeated, unsuccessful motions and delays significantly increased the cost and duration of the proceedings.

The court stated, 'an award of attorney's fees is warranted, but not the full amount that the plaintiff requests,' and cited the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation, including 'repeated jurisdictional challenges, unsuccessful motions seeking reconsideration or reassignment, frivolous counter claims, missed deadlines, and other filings that allegedly increase the cost and duration of the proceedings.'

The court firmly rejected the defendant's argument that her 'spiritual brain,' 'claircognizance,' and 'psychic abilities' justified her defamatory statements or protected them under religious freedom. The court emphasized that such beliefs do not exempt individuals from the legal requirement to present factual evidence in a defamation case.

The court noted the defendant's argument that 'the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plausibility of spiritual practices' and that she claimed 'you're violating the First Amendment and my right to practice my religion.' The court's response was that 'you can believe and do whatever you like, but that doesn't mean you can defame people and then call it a religious practice and then not present any evidence.'

The host highlighted the extraordinary patience of the court with the pro se defendant, who repeatedly filed motions challenging already settled aspects of the case and made circular arguments. This patience, while intended to ensure fair litigation, ultimately prolonged the process and increased costs for the plaintiff.

Emily D. Baker commented, 'The court was incredibly patient and maybe sometimes too patient, more patient than the court would have been for an attorney... The judge was so patient, annoyingly so to me. Cuz most days I was just crashing out being like, 'Why is the judge allowing this [expletive]?'

The court determined that the TikTok psychic defendant's defense was consistently based on unsubstantiated claims, including 'spiritual investigation' and 'intuitive tarot readings,' which were legally insufficient. Her conduct involved repeated challenges to jurisdiction, reconsideration motions, missed deadlines, and last-minute filings, all deemed frivolous, unreasonable, and indicative of bad faith.

The court stated the defendant's 'only support for her accusations was her claimed quote unquote spiritual investigation and quote unquote intuitive tarot readings which were insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact.' The court concluded her litigation conduct was 'frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, and indicative of bad faith.'

Despite finding bad faith, the court awarded the plaintiff only $27,699 in attorney's fees, a significant reduction from the requested amount. The court's rationale included not revisiting prior denials of sanctions and not shifting fees for the damages phase of the trial, as the defendant had a right to contest the extent of alleged injuries.

The court concluded 'plaintiff incurred recoverable attorney's fees in the amount of $27,699.' The host noted this was a 'massive cut in the attorney's fees requested,' and the court would 'not award fees for matters where a plaintiff previously sought attorney's fees as a sanction and the court expressly denied such relief.'

The host highlights that securing a $10 million judgment and even the awarded attorney's fees does not guarantee easy collection. The defendant is expected to appeal and potentially attempt to become 'judgment proof,' making the enforcement phase a difficult, lengthy, and costly process for the plaintiff.

The host states, 'going after the $10 million award is going to be difficult and the attorney's fees may be procedurally easier to collect than the 10 million in compensatory impunitive damages.' She adds, 'the professor now has to proactively go after collections and that can take years.'

The host clarifies that while individuals can practice any religion, it does not grant immunity from legal consequences for illegal activities like defamation. Accusing someone of murder based on 'spiritual investigation' or 'tarot readings' is not protected religious expression.

The host states, 'You can practice whatever you want, but it cannot cross the line into illegal activity. And so, when you are looking at defamation, you cannot defame someone and say, "Oh, but it's my religion." What you can't do is go on the internet and accuse people of murder.'