TMZ Live - 9/8/26

Welcome to TMZ Live. Charles is off today. I'll be back tomorrow. The Lindsay Clancy case. Kevin Reddington went on Good Morning America. He is, I think, an incredible lawyer. He is, you know, you can agree or disagree with his position on a postpartum psychosis, but he undeniably is a great lawyer, which made what happened this morning on Good Morning America really surprising to me. What's next for Lindsay? I'd like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt compelled to speak out about this case, may very well, Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady the type of person she is, what she's been through, and consider a pardon. How on earth is Kevin Reddington saying this? This is a state trial, and Donald Trump does not have the power to pardon. And this guy is a great lawyer. It's such a bizarre thing. It was bizarre. Unless he's trying to drum up a conversation in the public about whether or not. He said pardon. I know, but the governor of Massachusetts could, but that's not who he's asking about. It's just weird that this is as basic as it gets. As basic as it gets, right. And it's just an odd thing. If he would have said, hey, put some pressure on the governor of Massachusetts, but Massachusetts is not Trump country. Right, right, right. So it's like, Donald Trump's not going to get any traction in Massachusetts. Had he said, everybody from your local city council, the governor, the president of the United States should get involved in getting this woman, stop the prosecution, fine. But here he asked for a pardon, specifically use those words. Okay, I want to get to something else. Yeah. Because this, I found, it's just really interesting and tragic. There is a woman named Corey Walsh who lives in Illinois. And on September 1st, she allegedly hung her two year old son while her husband was away on a business trip and then went into the bathroom, I believe somewhere upstairs and cut herself. She was obsessed with the Lindsay Clancy case and had been texting a friend about it. And there are people now who are saying, you see what happens when defendants who kill their kids are allowed to raise this defense, they're going to be copycats. And people are really going after Lindsay Clancy and her legal team for raising a defense, which they say opened the door to people who are doing copycats. It's not just raising the defense. It's also, there's been a tremendous amount of public sympathy behind Lindsay Clancy. And I think there might be some statement that they're glomming on to that kind of popularity, almost, that people are getting the sympathy that they get publicly, that that might enable people or empower people to do what Kerry Walsh did. And that may be true, by the way. But I want to make a point. This is opinion. If Lindsay Clancy opened that door, that's terrible that people would do something. And again, I have no idea what happened in the Illinois case, whether this woman has postpartum psychosis. I don't know that anybody knows at this point. And that remains to be seen. If it isn't the case, and, you know, she said that her son was possessed by the devil. So that may be the case. And maybe she's making it up because she just wanted to get out of parenthood. I don't know. But that shouldn't delegitimize a real defense. If, you know, Lindsay Clancy really did suffer from postpartum psychosis, and apparently 11 jurors believe that, you can't say, well, she's not allowed to raise the defense because somebody else is going to do it illegitimately. You know, we have a new show with the New York Post called The Lowdown, which is on YouTube. And we have like eight stories that are making waves around the country. And one of them is this. And, you know, the way I see it is, there are people who kill somebody and they say it's done in self-defense. And sometimes it really is. And there are also people who use self-defense illegitimately and, you know, to justify killing somebody. But because there are people who do it in the wrong way, doesn't mean the people who truly can exercise self-defense shouldn't be allowed to do it. And the same thing should exist for something like Lindsay Clancy for postpartum psychosis. The one difference is, and I agree with you completely, but the one difference that I think some people would draw is that nobody disputes self-defense as a real thing that is a justification for killing somebody else. But 11 people believed it was a real thing in Lindsay Clancy. I understand that. But there are people who discount that defense altogether. Well, there may. But 11 people listened to this evidence. And I think most people went into this trial thinking, fry her. I mean, she killed her three kids. Yet by listening to the evidence, 11 out of 12 people were compelled to voting not guilty by reason of insanity. Right. The chat is wondering, because we just saw what you're explaining, the 11 people voting for that. Are we worried that we're going to see more people doing copycat things with it? But that's what we just said, that there are people who are going to try this illegitimately. But that doesn't mean if you have a legitimate case, you can't raise it because you're afraid that somebody else is going to do something. There's two things that we're talking about. I think what Tawana is suggesting is that people might be inclined to commit the crime in the first place because they know this defense is available. And that people, there's 11 people that they could get in a jury with 11 people that might also get them off as well. I find that very hard to believe. There are people who commit murder thinking, oh, I'll just say it's self defense. So it's the same thing. I mean, people will use defenses inappropriately. But that doesn't mean when it really should apply that they shouldn't use it. And that's, to me, the case of Lindsey Clancy. The chat also wants to know how do you decipher when this defense comes when it's good and when it's not. A jury does that. That's what a jury is for. And in this case, 11 out of 12 people said it was legit. Hi, Iman here, trial attorney from New Jersey. And I just wanted to quickly comment on the Clancy case. We are all aware that the president spoke on this matter recently and basically implied guilt saying that she did a horrible thing, which is particularly interesting because the laws in our country don't allow for that, right? We have a justice system and our justice system is innocent until proven guilty. So number one, that's to me is a little bit questionable, but I'm not the president. So whatever. Second, Reddington today got on Good Morning America and said, well, since the president feels compelled to talk about my case, how about giving my client a pardon? Which is so funny to me as a trial attorney, because obviously the jurisdiction is an issue. Everybody knows that. And as a seasoned trial attorney, obviously he knows that. But then why do you say it? I think he said it to poke holes right back, you know, to make fun right back. But he's not poking a hole. Yes and no, not poking a hole. But if the president is saying that his client is guilty when she hasn't been found guilty through the system that we have. You know what? A lot of people have opinions watching a case. You know, look, I remember covering O.J. Simpson. People didn't hold back saying either he was guilty or not guilty. It happens all the time and presidents do it too. So there was a sold out concert in Chicago over the weekend. It's Kanye related, but not Kanye. It is Kanye's kid, 13 year old Northwest. She packed a 6,000 seat venue and performed solo for the first time. Kanye was there. Kim was there. They were on opposite ends of the auditorium, which I think is interesting. But North got pretty good reviews. Yeah, she had fans there. Like you said, it's sold out. The seating area, the standing area sold out. She did her tracks from her EP, Forever North. I think it's what it's called. You can see like people. They're happy. They're excited. Yeah. People are like, oh, it was in Chicago. Those are just Kanye fans because you know, Kanye was doing shows in Chicago. False. Because if you listen to the videos, you can hear the fans knowing the songs word for word. They got their phones out there. How old were they? I mean, I would assume. I mean, are they kids? I can't tell what they look like. I would assume that they're kids with their parents. Maybe a little young adults. I don't see the difference between this and Miley Cyrus when she was 14. I know. I don't. I don't see the difference. I think people are. The difference is the content of the music. Miley was like, you know, Disney, Hannah Montana. North is very much so like black grills, piercings. It looks a little bit different. Yeah, but people like it. That's fine. It's like, what's the difference? It's like she has her style. Miley had her style. And you know, some people think Miley is more talented, but so what? I mean, there are lots of people, some of whom have huge talent and they're successful, and others who don't have as much talent and are still successful. That's the thing with North. A lot of people say that she doesn't necessarily like have talent. So there's a lot of AI, but you know, it's not like actual. Well, you're the one who brought up Miley. Miley can sing. How many people, how many people who are big stars are auto tuned? It's the same thing. Not all of them. Well, most of them, but they can also still sing. Well, aren't you saying that they're actually in support of this? Like it's good that she's doing this and being able to put herself out there at 13 and do something like that. It's like very impressive. I think it's great. I thought it was cool to see Kanye just act fangirl. That was another point was saying that does this show that Kanye is doing a little bit better now since he's being able to show up to this support North while he's also there. And he's been able to have his concerts with no outbursts. I don't know. You can jump to that conclusion. I have no idea. Eric and Lyle Menendez are going to get another shot at freedom a lot sooner than we thought they failed the first time. And their lawyer, Mark Geragos was enraged and felt it was a kangaroo court. The question, why is it going to be different this time? Welcome back Mark to TMZ Live. Be right back. So Eric and Lyle Menendez are going to get another shot at freedom, a lot sooner than we thought. There was a scheduled parole date of August 2028 where they could go before the parole board again and ask for their freedom. That has been moved for some reason to March of next year. So literally we are months away from round two of Eric and Lyle Menendez going before the California parole board and seeking freedom. They failed the first time and their lawyer, Mark Geragos was enraged and felt it was a kangaroo court. So the question, why is it going to be different this time? So Mark is joining us. Welcome back Mark to TMZ Live. Thanks Harvey. I'll jump right in. Normally they got what's called a three-year denial, which is the minimum denial. You come back, behave yourself. This is what you should do. If you want to be released, you've got to adhere to these kinds of recommendations and you've got to do some programming. If you are clean, so to speak, and you do everything you're supposed to do, they have the authority to basically have that. And that's what they did. So roughly 18 months out of the 36, they've got a new hearing in March of next year. I'll convey that I know you don't think this is any chance of happening, but that maybe Gavin Newsom on the way out the door short circuits that. But notwithstanding that, there's always the parole hearing and I'm quite cautiously optimistic. So look, what happened the first time was they started looking at infractions like cell phone violations, things like that, and they denied them parole. There's a saying in the Jewish religion, which means why is this night different from all the others? Why would this parole hearing be different if it seemed like they were not at all interested in granting parole? Well, one of the Lyles was actually quite encouraging and they have not had any violations and they've done all of the so-called programming and all of the other things you would need to do. They literally have been exemplary inmates. And one of the things I just refreshed my recollection that I kind of blanked on, if you go through this process, I think the percentage of life without parole who've ended up being released, I think there's only one person who's ever re-violated. And I think percentage wise, out of all lifers in California, it's less than 1% that it's a violent act and it's less than 3% of anybody. But a lot of them just don't get out to try and- No, no, no. I'm talking of the people who get out. Right. But I'm saying there are a lot of people who apply, who don't get out, who might commit new crimes. Whether they commit new crimes or not, you were really angry when they were denied parole a few years ago and you felt it was a kangaroo court. You thought the deck was stacked going in. Is this going to be the same cast of characters on the parole board? I think that they reshuffle the deck, so to speak, and I think that you'll see whoever the commissioners are. I think they've got a better shot this time because we're not in the same overheated atmosphere that we were last time. I think last time it was such a political football, so to speak, that this time I think if it goes according to what normally happens in parole hearings, this is their second shot. And if there's any justice at all, they should be granted. Well, you mentioned Gavin Newsom. Next year is the wind up to the pitch for 2028 and he's running for president. And I cannot imagine Gavin Newsom in this climate paroling or granting clemency to Eric and Lyle Menendez. He will be tarred and feathered soft on crime if that happens. And he clearly has presidential ambitions. Well, that's true. And this hearing is, I guess, I suppose a cynic might say conveniently two months after he's out of office if it's in March. But he's still running. Well, clearly he's still out of office, meaning out of the governor. So he loses his ability to do. Oh, right, right, right, right. He doesn't have any. He doesn't have any ability. Oh, so you're saying if Becerra wins, then that you think you have a better shot than with Newsom. Correct. And mind you, there's always this tail to any parole decision. The tail is the governor either does something or doesn't do something with within, I believe it's 120 days. So if Newsom does not and decides that I'm not going to do anything and I don't know that I agree with you that his political calculation is I'm not going to do this because I'm going to get excoriated. He's got the ability to do what he thinks is the right thing. And the right thing at this point, I think, is that they get their sentences commuted. That may or may not be the right thing. I just don't see that. I don't see the calculus there. I just I. Well, yes, the political calculus. If you're listening to some political strategist who's telling you why create an issue that's going to be true, which he is. Well, he's done some things that are kind of counterintuitive from the traditional conventional wisdom. But the fact remains that both of them have been exemplary. Both of them have now spent over 20 years with no hope until they were resentenced by Judge Jessick last year. Both of them have not done anything, have any violence since then. The what I always call their violations were always to use a chick ism, ticky tack fouls. And at this point, if they aren't the prototypes for who you would want released, I don't know who is. OK, real quick. The family of Celeste Rivas, who was allegedly murdered by David, he's on trial for murder. They said they want the death penalty. And the D.A. Nate Hockman has not yet decided, but he says it's on the table. Is it realistic that Hockman is going to go for the death penalty? Well, if he did, I mean, realistic in this sense, that penalty in California is basically pun intended dead on arrival. It hasn't been utilized since, I think, Williams. And that's decades ago. Number one. Number two, there is currently a moratorium signed by this current governor, Gavin Newsom, on the death penalty. And I don't think in L.A. County that this is a winning move by Nate Hockman ultimately. But it may be a smart strategic move because when you seek the death penalty, unfortunately, it weeds out a lot of jurors right off the bat. And a cynical person might say, well, if you seek the death penalty, you're going to get a more pro prosecution jury pool, which is interesting. And I get it. It's I think it matters. He's 20 years old. I do, too. And that's supposed to be the calculus. You and I are old enough to remember when they used to do what's called Livesy letters, which were named after Curt Livesy, who was in the D.A.'s office for many years. Yeah. And Curt Livesy used to take age into consideration. The committee that was named after him used to take age and lack of criminal background into consideration. The countervailing point to that is going to be that, look, she was young, she was vulnerable, she was homeless or a runaway. And all of those things are aggravating factors, so to speak, when you're considering whether to impose the death penalty. So you and I do a podcast together every week called Two Angry Men. And there is something you say on Two Angry Men that you just said here. And I want to end by asking you, as somebody who's known you for decades, can you stop saying you and I are old enough? I'm just begging you to stop saying that, please. I would lose one of the things I bond with Charles over. So, no, I'm not going to. OK, I'll see you later. Thanks. Bye bye. Coming up, this is one of my favorite stories in a while. There was a woman who went berserk at an In-N-Out, Luca Upperman. Here's the commotion. He's in the drive-thru. So what happens next, I think, is absolutely remarkable. I climbed through the window. I grabbed a spatula. Be right back. This is one of my favorite stories in a while. There was a woman who went berserk at an In-N-Out in Lake Elsinore, California. And she may have done some real damage, not just to property, but to people. She was wielding a weapon. And there's a guy who's 20 years old. His name is And Luca, here's the commotion. He's in the drive-thru. So what happens next, I think, is absolutely remarkable. I'm going to let him tell you this story. It's just a great story. Luca, welcome to TMZ Live. Hi, thank you for having me. OK, so you're in the drive-thru with your girlfriend and you get your food. You hear something. Take it away. So basically, I'm at the second window. And out of nowhere, I just hear a commotion. And basically, what I see is this lady. She's wielding a stick. One side is really thick. The other side, as you can see in the video, has a sharp end to it. So I don't know what prompted me to just see this and just fly through it. I remember at first when I saw it, I wasn't really going to do anything up until the point where there's a gate that divides the kitchen and the lobby, right? So what really made me feel like I have to do something was when I saw her, she opened up that gate and started going to the back where the employees were. That's when the employees, they kind of had already gone into hiding. So I'm like, OK, well, that's just great. Now I really have to go. Let me just stop you for one sec. What was she wielding? What was she holding? She was wielding a five-foot-long stick that, on one side, was broken off from a tree branch. So it's like sharp. And on the other side, it's like a really thick stick. So she could do damage on both sides of the stick. And she's just swinging it around like, yeah, she did not care who she could hit. So I went, I climbed through the window. I grabbed a spatula. It was the closest thing to me. And I'm just raising it. I'm trying to get her out of the kitchen. And basically, yeah, then once I get her out of the kitchen and into the lobby, you can see I try grabbing the stick. That clearly did not work. So I kind of have to wait for the right moment, right? And luckily, there's these two fully grown men. They were just sitting there. They didn't want to do anything. They didn't want any part of it. But luckily, since they were there and they didn't do anything, I got the chance to yell at them. And I'm like, you guys are just going to sit there. You guys are just going to watch this whole thing happen. And while I'm yelling at them, pretty much, right, she turns to them. Are they older guys? Older guys. Yeah, probably in like their like 30s. You know what I mean? OK, now you've lost me, man. OK, that just that just killed me. But go on. Yeah, they could have. Yeah, they could have. They could have. So like, you know, at least I know we outnumbered her. But I mean, you know, whatever. So once once I got the chance to yell at them, though, she turns to them and is like, like, yeah, don't do anything. And that's when I get the chance to, like, go and grab the stick. So that was. Yeah. So that's when you see you disarmed her. Yeah, I did. I effectively disarmed her. I took the stick from her. And then I just remember I'm like, yeah, who has the stick now to her? It was it was great. You know, so so, you know, there's one thing to be a good Samaritan if it's right in front of you. You have to literally jump through this tiny window. Yeah. When you're in your car and you're seeing this woman going crazy, that's kind of unbelievable. I mean, that is like beyond good Samaritan. I you know, so at the moment, like, I wasn't really thinking like, oh, good Samaritan or like, oh, you know, like I'm a hero for this or something like that. Like, it was more just like, OK, this is something that has to be done in this moment. Like, I don't want nobody to get hurt from this crazy lady. Like, yeah, I mean, I don't know. Like, there's just this whole narrative now that like, I don't know, Gen Z, we're not really doing the best. You know what I mean? We're kind of like I don't want to say we're a little bit of wussies, but like, you know, that's kind of the narrative that's being pushed. And I just kind of wanted to push back on it. You know, you're the poster guy for Gen Z. I'm trying, you know what I mean? I one man can only do so much, but, you know, I'm doing the best I can. That is by the way, there are a lot of older people, even older than in their 30s, who kind of mock Gen Z for being too soft. Yeah. You have blown up that paradigm. I again, one man can only do so much. I and my parents, you know, I feel like they raised me. They raised me on the tougher side. I definitely got a little bit of tougher grit for sure. You know, I would just say that, you know, they wouldn't have wanted me to put myself in harm's way. Right. But my you know, like my dad, he would have also you know, he would have seen something like that. And I feel like, you know, if he was in my if he if he could do what I would have done, he would have done it. You know what I mean? So I just did something my dad would have wanted me to do. OK. Yeah. OK. So you may have saved some in and out employees. Yes. From serious injuries. Has In-N-Out contacted you? I mean, dude, the support in general has been. No, no, I'm not asking about the support in general. In-N-Out contacted you? In-N-Out has contacted me. Yeah. I am not exactly too sure what they have in store for me yet. I know that their COO, they reached out to me. He thanked me personally. That meant a lot, too. I mean, I'm a huge fan of In-N-Out. So, I mean, even, you know, you know, it's just a little gift card or something like that. That would go a long way to give you a lifetime certificate for. I'm serious. Fingers are crossed. No, Luca, I'm actually serious. You should negotiate this. I mean, look at what you did. Well, I'm serious. If it's if it's in the cards, if it's in the cards, I'd love to pull it. I mean, I you know, I wouldn't say it's out of the realm of possibility yet. I don't know what's in the box that, you know, I know they said that they were going to send me some things. So fingers crossed. I think it's I think I think there's a chance that that could happen. But I don't want to say anything because, you know, I'm a big fan of I don't like jinxing things. So I don't want to I don't I don't want to say it, but it could happen. Yeah. What are you doing now? Are you in school? What do you do? I'm in school currently. I go to Cal State San Marcos. I'm a third year business major. What is it on the side? I do like, you know, I have a job. I don't know if I want to put that out there yet. But yeah. Yeah. I'm just working and I'm in school. You know, I'm literally the average 20 year old SoCal kid. You know, I got to say, if there were a bet to be placed, I would bet on you. I'm serious. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much. I really do appreciate it. Good job, Luca. Thank you. Coming up, Carrie Ann Parkinson is a mother of five and she was convicted of letting the child roam a half a mile from their house to a nearby pond without parental supervision. Suddenly it was a crime. And I'm going to tell and I'm a child abuser. Be right back. I am obsessed with this story. Carrie Ann Parkinson is a mother of five. She lives in Virginia and she is now a criminal. She was convicted of basically allowing her child to become a delinquent by letting the child roam a half a mile from their house to a nearby pond and roam there alone without parental supervision. They found the child walking to the pond. They brought the child back to the house. Carrie Ann said, yeah, my son is five years old, is more than capable of doing this. Children's services got involved. He ended up prosecuting her for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and a judge convicted her. And I just find this outrageous. But she was so eloquent in explaining on CNN why she did what she did. Listen to this and then we're going to talk about it. It was just bewildering because it was, you know, it wasn't some impulsive parenting decision. It This is a trail that Sam walks on every day. It's the trail his siblings take to go to school. It's the trail he takes to go to swim lessons, to tennis practice, to the park, to his friend's houses. He has made this walk hundreds of times and suddenly it was a crime and I'm a child abuser on a child abuse registry. This was a reasonable childhood activity on foot near home and he was capable of taking that risk on his own. I have five children. When my third was five, I wouldn't have let her do that same activity because she wasn't ready for that. Everyone should look at their own children and determine what they think is right for their kids. But what we shouldn't do is criminalize people who do know their children and do know what they're capable of and allow them to explore those capabilities. This is exactly what you've been talking about. This is exactly what we've been talking about in our morning meetings. I want to push back a little bit, this is a five-year-old child. I was six years old and I would walk to the movies alone. The world is a different place now. It's a much more dangerous place in a lot of respects. This is a five-year-old child. I would argue it's a safer place in a way. In some respects, it's safer, but leaving a five-year-old that you have come to the judgment is okay to go collect goose feathers down by the pond is not how we should regulate society in general. I mean, she has come to the judgment. Imagine something bad had happened and she said, well, I thought the kid was okay. We would never have a crime in these circumstances. It's in her neighborhood. It's in her neighborhood. The kid's walking to a pond in her neighborhood. And abductions are possible? This is a five-year-old. I don't care how mature. I have a seven-year-old I wouldn't let wander down to the park. The abduction rate, as she talked about this, that it's virtually non-existent. Okay. It's virtually non-existent. So she, as a parent, chooses to allow her child to walk to a pond. And she said, I wouldn't do it with all of my kids. I wouldn't do it with my daughter because she's not really able, but I can look at each kid and by the way. So how do we regulate this then? I mean, this is a five-year-old. She's always going to come to the judgment that I thought it was okay for this child. And something happens. You need to have a criminal sanction for this type of behavior and you draw it in rough-jawed ways. Letting your child walk down to the pond. Oh my God. Letting a child walk down to the pond. It sounds innocuous, but man. It is innocuous. Well, our chat is saying, it's pretty split, but half of them is saying that even in a gated community, there's no way that they know every single person. And that you can say that they can just feel safe with a five-year-old walking alone. You are going to hermetically seal your child for what? 18 years? And then good luck with this kid being on his own, where he is afraid of his own. You're undoubtedly right that this will harm some kids' ability to be resilient in the future. It'll also save a lot of kids from abduction potentially. There was literally no risk of abduction in this neighborhood. She talked about this. There were no abductions in this neighborhood. I know you wandered to the movie theater, but a five-year-old is a little, little kid. They are kindergarteners, Harvey. They're not even in grade level. Group chat do agree with Harvey. So, well, okay. Well, somebody's saying that this is honestly crazy. We have people getting away with murder and yet they're wasting time prosecuting moms. By the way, she's a lawyer now too. She has five kids. She's a lawyer. She's really smart. She is thoughtful. She's a good parent and she's a criminal contributing to the delinquency of a five-year-old that was walking to a pond. The criminal sanction seems stiff for her to be on a list. She's on a CPS list for seven years. It's unimaginable to me and to many people in this office who have children to let your child wander to a pond unattended. Wander is crazy. That's like a kid riding a bike and then going down the street and his parents can't see him anymore and now we're saying that he wandered off on a bike. That's exactly the same thing. He went to the colder side and went back up but you can't see him. People don't do that. The world you grew up in in the lovely 50s with homemakers and the whole thing is not the world we live in. They ride their e-bikes. Hi, my name is Victor. I'm from Trenton, New Jersey and I just think that the matter is not on if the child is capable or not. I just think that it's the environment. You have to protect your children and you never know who is going to do what. I understand that they were in a gated community but there can be abductors in that community. It's a gated community. That's fine but even if it's a gated community you could have a neighbor who just moved in there that could be crazy and could kidnap your child. Do I think that she was wrong? It didn't happen in the neighborhood ever. She talked about that. That's never happened. I understand her thought process behind it. I understand why she did what she did. Was she doing it with ill intent? Absolutely not but you never know what's going to happen. God forbid someone smashes your child. What's the magic age? 18 when they can walk alone. What's the magic age where they can walk alone? No, I don't think. I think that the magic age should be when they're able to run away or if they have cell phone or something like that. I think that they should always be together. Growing up when I would go out in the neighborhood with my little siblings, my cousins, we would always be together and we would be in close proximity so that if anything were able to happen we would be able to go back home or we'd be able to call. I don't think that he should have been alone at five years old and especially if she's picking and choosing which child can go alone. I don't think that that's proper and I think that that can cause your child to be kidnapped and you never know what happens in this world. You have to protect your children. Do I think she should be convicted? I think that it's a stretch. I think that there's a lot worse things going on in the world but I think that she should use it as a learning opportunity rather than doubling down because oh my god a learning opportunity. The kids walk into a pond. Boy, my parents would be in such trouble. Coming up, we just broke a story that Celeste Rivas's family, the girl who was murdered, her family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against David and a number of other people. Yeah, this is explosive stuff. Be right back. So we talked about David earlier in the show. We just broke a story that Celeste Rivas's family, the girl who was murdered, her family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against David and a number of other people. Yeah, this is explosive stuff. So her parents, Mercedes and Jesus, have filed this wrongful death action and they quote heavily from the prosecution's case and that's to be expected to blame David for the wrongful death of their daughter. Now he doesn't have, according to the public defender, he doesn't have any money. He's That's right. And this is key. This is why a bunch of other entities and people were sued in this lawsuit. Most conspicuously, Josh Marshall, who's the head of Mogul Vision, which is the management company for David, who was around him a lot, Robert Morgan Roth, who was the day-to-day manager, Sheldon Jacques, who is a live-in security guard, put a pin in that, and Colleen Burke, who is David's mother and personal finance manager. The idea is that they knew he was allegedly having an affair with a 13-year-old girl. They knew and they facilitated it, according to this lawsuit. And the idea is that he was having sex with this girl and it ultimately led to her murder, therefore they're responsible for the chain of events. That's exactly right. They had a duty, they say Mogul Vision actually leased that residence, Colleen Burke handled the finances and paid the bills that allowed all this to happen, and they hired this guy named Sheldon Jacques. He was a live-in security guard. And in 2024, during a period in which Celeste repeatedly left her family home, they say that Sheldon transported her to come live. And he lived in the residence, too, for six months while this sexual abuse was ongoing. So they want to blame Sheldon as well. So they're not saying that they were part and parcel of the murder. They're saying that by allowing the relationship to even develop, that it set the chain of events in motion that ultimately led to her death. That's exactly right. They said they knew or should have known that David had dangerous propensities toward and sexually exploited Celeste, and they failed to take reasonable steps to protect her. They also say after the death, David and others, they're not specific here, acted in concert to cover all this up. They're not specific in that particular paragraph, but they say we're still looking through his iCloud, and we reserve the right to change this lawsuit as we get more evidence. I will say it's interesting because covering up is not part of wrongful death. That's right. It might show a consciousness of guilt. It just shows. But if they cover up after the fact, it doesn't necessarily go to wrongful death. That's right. Totally different crime. All go to their state of mind. Right. Okay. Well, our child was saying that the parents have to take some sort of blame still, because how can they say all this when the parents also knew? That will be part of the defense. Coming up, South Park took a shot at Donald Trump. South Park won an Emmy for this scene. Remember this? Donald Trump was very angry about it. South Park decides that they would give him the Emmy because he wanted an Emmy as much as he wanted the Nobel Prize for The Apprentice. Be right back. So South Park took a shot at Donald Trump last night. South Park won an Emmy for this scene. Remember this? When Donald Trump is in bed with Satan, it became a big thing. Donald Trump was very angry about it, but it won an Emmy. That was the episode for which South Park won an Emmy. South Park decides that they are going to give that Emmy the way somebody once gave Donald Trump a Nobel Prize that he never won, that they would give him the Emmy because he wanted an Emmy as much as he wanted the Nobel Prize for The Apprentice. Never got it, but they're willing to give it. Apparently, he really wanted the Emmy for The Apprentice, right? He felt like he got nominated, but never got it. Did you see what South Park has done since? Oh, this is hysterical. They're trolling him again. They also post this. It says, inspired by the bravery and patriotism of Apple and Google, we are changing the name of South Park to South America. We especially want to thank our parent company, Paramount, of Sky Dance capitulation. They're still leaning into trolling the hell out of him. We were talking about it this morning, though. It's interesting that South Park really can kind of push the boundaries. I'm not saying this particular thing was some of the craziest stuff they've done, but they pushed the boundaries and they really just never have been canceled, ever. They actually not only are not canceled, they get rewarded. Oh, they're winning Emmys. They won an Emmy. Although, the people who vote on the Emmys- Are pretty liberal. Yeah, probably not big Trump fans. Yeah, that's true. Hi, Chelsea Dallas. Honestly, I'm not really worried about the Emmy as much as I'm worried about the fact that Trump's going to be very upset about this. I mean, he gets very butthurt over the fact that they keep trolling him. And honestly, he'll find a way for them to get canceled or remove them from some kind of network. I don't think they're going to remove him. I think the hysterical thing would be if the guys from South Park actually physically gave Donald Trump the Emmy, whether Donald Trump would accept it. Coming up- Somebody got in the Guinness Book. Yeah, this is incredibly impressive. I think it's one of the most impressive sports feeds I've ever seen, Harvey. This woman from the UK ate that burrito in under 31 seconds. Be right back. Somebody got in the Guinness Book and they got in the Guinness Book for something that is near and dear to your heart. Yeah, this is incredibly impressive. I think it's one of the most impressive sports feeds that I've ever seen, Harvey. This woman from the UK ate that burrito, and it's not a small burrito. It's like one of those- No, it's a big burrito, you can tell. She ate that in under 31 seconds. So she previously had the record, Harvey. She lost the record to a speed eater in the United States, and then she went and she got her record back. 30.75 seconds. I was very impressed. If you were here today, we did all sorts of stories about people who were subduing people at In-N-Out, and he thought the most remarkable thing was the burrito. I was so impressed. See you tomorrow.