She was a witness to a car accident, along with an off duty police officer, another witness. Hannah saw the accident and believed him to be intoxicated, according to her own statements on the phone to 911. (It actually turns out he was having a diabetic emergency) The man who caused the accident left the scene. Hannah called 911 and engaged in a vehicle pursuit.
The dispatcher, upon finding out Hannah was engaged in a vehicle pursuit, said “We actually don’t want you to chase him,” then asked her to return to the scene of the accident.
Hannah replied, “There is a police officer at the scene, but this guy is drunk, and I am not NOT going to follow him, because he is going to cause another accident.”
When she caught up to him, Hannah pulled her vehicle into the path of the man’s car, to block him from going further. She got out of her car to confront him, yelling for him to get out of the car. She is heard to say, “He was fighting with me, and he pulled the trigger on my gun.” The thing is, he was still in his pickup with his seatbelt on. She claims her finger was indexed and not on the trigger. You decide, here is a screen grab from the video:
In 2023, Hannah was convicted of felony murder, false imprisonment, and weapons charges, and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, plus 8 years and 5 years. The story would end there, a wanna be cop with a gun who decided to shoot someone over a traffic accident she wasn’t even involved in, but there is more.
The Supreme Court of Georgia weighed in on her appeal just this spring. The prosecutor in the case had used AI to write her legal briefs and motions. The case law cited by the AI was fake, either made up cases, or the cases cited didn’t say what the lawyer claimed they did. So the Supreme Court of Georgia, as they should have, ordered the conviction tossed out, and granted Hannah a new trial.
#news One of the Lindsay Clancy jurors said she did not consider any of the points the prosecution made in the trial – not one.#massachusetts Reporter: Did the prosecution make any points you considered? Paula Devlin: No.
I said yesterday that the AWFLs would drop the attacks on the Lone Standout after discovering he was black. It turns out that I was wrong. They will protect their own even more so than they protect the slaves on their plantation.
They are investigating and attacking the guy. The latest attack includes references to his having a domestic violence restraining order. These DV restraining orders are bullshit that women frequently use as a weapon in divorces or just to get even with a man who has done something they don’t like. I have twice been accused of this by angry ex-girlfriends who were trying to get revenge on me for daring to be their ex:
In the second case, the woman learned about it from me after I had foolishly told her about the first time. She made all sorts of claims about things that she claimed I did. The big thing that saved me was that I had proof that I wasn’t even in the country when some of the events supposedly took place.
25% of all divorces include accusations of domestic violence. 50% of all domestic violence restraining orders are issued without allegations of violence. 70% of domestic violence restraining orders are trivial or false. (PDF warning) 85% of restraining orders are against men
In fact, a New Mexico woman filed a restraining order against David Letterman in 2005, alleging that she was a victim of his domestic abuse. He had never met the woman. She said that he was using secret code words during his television show to threaten her. The judge in the case found her claims to have merit and granted the order, even though it was later overturned.
To me, if there is no accompanying criminal charge for domestic violence, then the entire issue is a woman making things up because she is a mad cow. The way it works, is a woman accuses a man of domestic violence. She is granted an ex parte hearing, where her accusations are all the court hears. If the court agrees that the claim has merit, the DV order is issued. The first hint a man has that one of these has been issued is when the cops show up with the order, which includes suspension of any concealed weapons permits, and an order that he turn his guns into the police within 48 hours.
Then he gets a hearing sometime in the next couple of weeks. He had better bring a lawyer, because she will have one, provided free of charge by the taxpayers. If he loses, the order becomes permanent, and he is now prohibited from owning firearms or ammunition. For life.
Most men don’t fight it because it costs money to hire a lawyer, money they don’t have. They figure they are never going to see her again, so what’s the big deal. Most don’t find out they are prohibited persons until after it is too late.
The law says that women can make an accusation of domestic violence and the court will punish the man by issuing a restraining order without him being allowed to defend himself. He gets a hearing two weeks later, but by that time his guns have been taken and his concealed weapons permit revoked. There is no fee for the woman to do this.
She gets a free lawyer. He does not. When it is discovered that she lied, nothing happens to her. She will not be prosecuted, and cannot be sued or punished in any way.
Unfortunately, the current version of section 784.046 does not seem to permit the trial court to simply dismiss a sworn petition that does not allege facts that fall within the statutory language. Instead, section 784.046(5) requires that “[u]pon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time.” The result is the use of scant judicial resources to conduct unnecessary hearings based on pleadings that could never support the issuance of an injunction. These same hearings often serve only to inflame the parties’ emotions and foster further uncivil behavior. I would encourage the legislature to consider amending the domestic violence and repeat violence statutes to allow judges to dismiss petitions that, on their face, do not contain allegations sufficient to meet the statutory requirements without prejudice to the petitioner refiling a legally sufficient petition if he or she can do so.
Women who lie to use the law as a weapon cannot be punished. From the same decision:
Further, nowhere in section 784.046 is there any provision for an award of sanctions against a petitioner who uses the statutory provisions concerning injunctions as a sword rather than a shield.
The message is loud and clear- you will do what the AWFLs say, as a jury member, you will do whatever they want, or they will destroy your life.
At the end of the day, this is jury tampering. I don’t see how this is any different than a criminal threatening a witness.
Using a juror’s identity or personal information to intimidate, harass, threaten, mislead, or retaliate against the juror (or their family) is a felony under G.L. c. 268, § 13B (intimidation of a juror). This covers both during and after a trial if the intent is to interfere with or punish participation in the proceeding.
Penalty:
Up to 10 years in state prison, or
Up to 2½ years in a house of correction, and/or
Fine of $1,000–$5,000.
If the underlying case involved a crime punishable by life imprisonment, the maximum prison term rises to 20 years.
This campaign to dox and harass this guy is nothing short of jury tampering, and is a felony.
This post is late because it’s concerning the Lindsay Clancy trial. I wrote and scheduled it before the mistrial was declared. I decided to postpone it so I could do some edits. This is the result.
The Lindsay Clancy case has brought the TikTok Detective bureau out of the shadows. These women, experts in everything from police procedure to medicine, psychology, forensic evidence collection, law, military tactics, and nuclear physics are on the case and have declared Lindsay to be not guilty for reasons ranging from insanity to “her husband did it.”
Keep in mind, she was indicted for killing those children in October 2023, yet waited to file this lawsuit until January of 2026, shortly before her criminal trial. This is part of a claim Lindsay and her attorneys are making, that she was not in control or aware of her actions at the time she killed the children.
For that reason, there is no doubt, zero, that she in fact killed those children.
Killing someone isn’t always illegal, but in those cases, the defense requires admitting to the facts. For example, if I shoot and kill someone who tried to rob me at gunpoint, claiming self defense requires that I admit to shooting and killing the person, but I have an affirmative defense in that self defense is legal. I make the claim of being in reasonable fear for my life. The prosecution then has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting wasn’t in self defense.
The actual controlling Massachusetts rule is the doctrine of criminal responsibility, originating in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case law rather than a statute specifically saying “psychosis.” The foundational case is Commonwealth v. McHoul, 352 Mass. 544, 546–547 (1967). The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s current 2026 Model Jury Instruction on Criminal Responsibility states:
A person is not criminally responsible for his conduct if he has a mental disease or defect, and, as a result of that mental disease or defect, lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
The evidence never required anyone to believe Lindsay Clancy was well. She clearly was not, as anyone who will kill their children is not mentally well. But being profoundly mentally ill and not being responsible for your actions are not the same thing. The law in this case requires the person making the insanity claim be unaware of the wrongfulness of their actions.
None of the providers who treated Lindsay Clancy diagnosed her with postpartum depression or psychosis. The evidence instead pointed toward a serious mood disorder, with multiple of them diagnosong her as bipolar.
As many who are bipolar do, she resisted that diagnosis, changed providers, often skipping or refusing to take medications. Lindsay was prescribed 13 different psychiatric medications over several months. That does NOT mean she was taking 13 medications simultaneously. The prosecution’s evidence indicated roughly 2–3 at a time. Then there’s the actual pill inventory presented at trial:
Zoloft: 30 prescribed — 23 remained
Ativan: 30 prescribed — 24 remained
Buspirone: 30 prescribed — 28 remained
Hydroxyzine: 30 prescribed — 27 remained
Buspirone refill: 30 prescribed — ALL 30 remained
Trazodone: 30 prescribed — 22½ remained
She hid some of her most disturbing thoughts from the people treating her because she knew it would result in her kids being taken. Above all, people with this condition are well known for resisting treatment, because they “aren’t crazy.”
Lindsay claims through her attorney that she became convinced that her brain was damaged and she would never return to her old self. She was suicidal, but her children were a tether to life, according to her claims.
Then there is the alleged voice. After months of treatment without documented psychosis, Lindsay said she heard a voice telling her to kill the children in the days and minutes before the killings. We are talking about roughly an 18-minute window where a voice commanded she kill her children. She never spoke of this voice before, or mentioned it until after the killings.
Yet during the killings and the hours preceding them, she was capable of purposeful, sequential behavior.
She created the opportunity to be alone with the children. She researched how long her husband’s trip would take and added another errand to extend that time. She killed the children one by one over a 15 minute period. When her husband called during this time, she missed his call and then made the decision to call him back. In the middle of a psychotic break so profound that it compelled her to kill her three children without realizing the gravity of her actions, she still recognized her husband had called, understood that not responding could warrant him returning early, and took affirmative action to call him back. That is difficult to reconcile with the narrative that Lindsay suddenly “snapped” and had no awareness of what she was doing.
Lindsay was profoundly mentally ill and genuinely wanted to die. But she still understood what she was doing when she killed her children. Those things are not mutually exclusive. She took steps to hide her psychosis, this alleged voice compelling her to kill, to get her husband out of the house, and to one by one kill her children.
Mental illness deserves compassion, and postpartum mental health deserves treatment, attention, and resources. However, compassion can’t replace the legal standard for criminal responsibility.
If the standard becomes, “She was a loving mother, therefore she must have snapped,” we’re no longer applying the law to the evidence. We’re creating our own definition of justice based on emotion and feelings.
In my opinion, this woman knew exactly what she was doing. She took steps to hide her behavior while she was carrying out her plan. All of this suggests cunning and a sense of guilt. You don’t hide your actions if you are unaware of the wrongness of what you are doing. In Massachusetts, the legal term for this is “consciousness of guilt.”
The legal issue to which those facts are relevant is whether the Commonwealth proved that the defendant retained substantial capacity to “appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness” of the conduct and to conform conduct to law. Massachusetts defines “appreciate” as understand, “criminality” as the legal significance of the conduct, and “wrongfulness” as its moral significance.
In this case, taking steps to prevent her plan from being foiled:
conceal what they intended to do
waited until her husband was gone
created a diversion to get her husband away from the scene
lied about what she intended to do
selected the time or place designed to avoid intervention
took steps calculated to ensure nobody discovered or stopped the act.
In my mind, that is what it boils down to: Did this woman know what she was doing was wrong, as evidenced by the fact that she took active, complex actions to ensure no one could discover or prevent her from carrying out her plan.
I think the answer is that she knew full well what she was doing. I tip my hat to the one juror who had the cajones to stand his ground in the face of the other 11 members of the jury, the judge, and the defense attorney. He stood up for those children, despite surely knowing what would happen to him in the aftermath, once his identity is discovered. The left is going to make his life miserable.
Now there are actually dumbasses out there who are calling for the elimination of the jury trial, saying we should use professional tribunals instead.
Retard says she would happily let Lindsay Clancy babysit her children and can't understand why people are treating Lindsay differently to her innocent husband. pic.twitter.com/QfAp28uVrP
The standard we expect from juries today just isn’t realistic. We expect a jury to enter a courtroom with no preconceived ideas of the case, no knowledge of what happened, and to not personally know anyone involved with the case. I listened to a conversation about the Clancy trial recently while I was at work and marveled at the direction it took.
To be completely honest, I haven’t followed the case much at all. I know the bare basics, but some of the women (yes, I work with a room full of women) have watched the trial from beginning to end.
One of the women, a paramedic, said she is getting her degree in forensics. She claimed that the husband did it, and further stated that, should this case result in a mistrial, they should charge the husband with the children’s deaths. It’s as if she has been watching a television show whodunit and is trying to figure out the plot.
A second woman agreed, saying there is no way that the mother killed her kids.
I chimed in, and admitted to not knowing any of the facts of the case, but I did say that the mother had confessed. The response was “Well, she said she doesn’t remember anything from that day, so how can she confess? I think the husband drugged her, and the only reason she says she did it is because everyone told her she did.”
Then they went on to say that, since this trial has had so much press, there is no way to find a jury who hasn’t heard about the case, therefore the woman can’t get a fair trial.
That isn’t how juries work. Do you think in 1790, when the right to a trial was created, the small towns where people lived could contain a jury of people who didn’t know anything or anyone about a criminal case?
A great example of this is Princeton, New Jersey. James Madison, who wrote the initial proposals for the constitutional amendments guaranteeing the right to a jury trial, lived there. It was a small village during the founding era: the Princeton Battlefield Society describes 60–80 families in 1776, and Princeton’s alumni magazine estimates no more than 300 residents living in the town in 1783. Any criminal trials in that town would have had a jury who knew either the case or the persons involved.
That’s fine. In Irvin v. Dowd (1961), the Supreme Court explained that jurors need not be “totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved.” They must be able to set aside prior opinions and decide on the evidence presented in court. (The Court nevertheless overturned that conviction because of actual prejudice.)
However, if reports I am hearing are correct, some of the jurors are interacting and participating in online support groups for the defendant. That is not allowed at all. The lawyers in the next trial will have to do some significant scrubbing and scrutiny of prospective juror’s social media presence to ensure there aren’t any activists from either side of the debate who wind up on the jury, then the jury will need to be strictly sequestered for the duration of the trial to ensure no insertion of bias.
The Democrats had friends in justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor and Lewis F. Powell Jr., all Republican-appointed justices whose votes often swung to the left. Now the justices largely vote with the party of the President who nominated them. Thanks to some maneuvering by the Republicans and a bit of stupidity and vanity on the part of Democrats, the Republican party has a bit of an advantage on the court, something they hadn’t been able to say for decades.
Antonin Scalia died under mysterious circumstances in 2016. Mitch McConnell managed to delay a vote on his replacement until after the 2016 election. Democrats, convinced that Hillary was a lock for the White House, went along with it. That put Neil Gorsuch on the bench and infuriated the left.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, trying to hold on to staying in office forever, managed to die during the last year of Trump’s first term. Republicans, not being as dumb as they usually are, were smart enough to replace her with Amy Barret, who hasn’t really been a stalwart Republican vote.
Leftist professors argue “This is the first time where you have a court where the ideology really maps onto partisan affiliation,” which is patently and verifiably false. The courts were left leaning for decades before Trump managed to shift the court more to the right. Anyone who says differently is either foolish or lying. The court would regularly tie itself in knots to rubber stamp things like Obamacare and the NFA.
Make no mistake, the left is doing everything it can to seize control of the nation and take it down the path to communism.
Stealing an idea from Democrats, the only way to ensure Fauci pays for his crimes is to prosecute him at the state level, because he was pardoned by President Autopen. Florida is doing that-
“Government officials have a certain level of immunity in their official capacities,” Uthmeier said. “But if Fauci personally profited off of the ‘guidance’ he issued, that very well could have broken Florida law.”
This is the exact strategy Democrats have been following when trying to go after Trump and his inner circle.
For those who read here, you know that I remain opposed to the death penalty. Not because killers don’t deserve it, but because I don’t trust our legal system not to execute the innocent. Still, the left wing press (redundancy alert) is up in arms because today is the day that Florida executes an 80 year old man. The press is claiming that it’s cruel to execute a disabled 80 year old.
He wasn’t 80 when he was convicted and sentenced 50 years ago. The man has delayed his punishment with appeal after appeal for five decades. While I am opposed to the death penalty, what we have now is a farce, with inmates spending 30, 40, and even 50 years abusing the court system. The government can abuse the legal process, but so can criminals.
If you are going to have a death penalty, there should be a limit to the number of appeals. Put all of your appeals into one motion that must be considered and ruled upon at once. Five year limit.
In the first half of the 20th Century, the Supreme Court stretched the intent of the Constitution beyond all recognition. The historical shift that permanently expanded federal power occurred during the New Deal Era (1937). Before that point, the Supreme Court strictly limited Congress by drawing sharp lines between “local” production (like manufacturing, farming, and mining) and “interstate” commerce (the actual shipping of goods).
Frustrated by repeated legal defeats, President Roosevelt proposed the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. This plan would allow him to add up to six new, sympathetic justices to the Supreme Court. While Congress rejected the plan, the threat of packing the Court heavily pressured the sitting justices to rule his way more often. Justice Owen Roberts, a supposedly conservative justice, shifted his vote in a landmark labor case, creating a new majority that favored the expansion of Federal power. The new lever that allowed the Federal Government to insert it’s abnormally large nose into everyone’s affairs was the commerce clause.
The Constitution grants the Federal government the power to regulate commerce through the “commerce clause.” The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.”
As with many things, they use the commerce clause to get their hands on powers they otherwise wouldn’t have. There were a few cases involving the commerce clause that came before it, but the one doing the most damage to state’s rights was Wickard v. Filburn (1942). I’ve blogged on this case a couple of times. That case concerned a farmer that was growing wheat for use on his own farm. He contended that he was not subject to the limits that the Federal Government had placed on wheat production, because his wheat was not sold, so it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone “interstate” commerce (described in the Constitution as “Commerce… among the several states”). The Supreme Court disagreed. They held that because he was growing his own wheat, he did not buy wheat from someone else. Since he did not buy someone else’s wheat, this affected interstate commerce and made his wheat subject to the regulations.
This court case basically says that the Feds can rule over anyone they please, without worrying about enumerated powers. All they have to do is play “six degrees of separation” to show that the behavior they wish to dictate affected interstate commerce in some way, no matter how tenuous.
The reason I bring this up today is because Justice Thomas’ concurrence in United States v. Hemani, in which he urged courts to reconsider the constitutional foundation of federal law. Thomas argued that goes too far, writing the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress only “to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services trafficked across state lines,” not “activities wholly separated from business, such as gun possession.”
This is an opinion that anyone with half a brain could see, what the gun ban crowd calls “common sense.” If I carve a toy out of wood and give it to my child, I didn’t affect interstate commerce, but those who would increase Federal powers would say it does. The same goes for making my own firearm at home, or for a felon who possesses a firearm. None of those activities affect interstate commerce, and are thus state law issues and none of the Federal government’s business.
“Congress cannot regulate the possession of every thing that ever traveled across state lines,” Thomas wrote, warning that such an interpretation risks converting Congress’ limited commerce authority into “a general police power of the sort retained by the States.”
Judge Stephen Higginson said striking down Section 922(g) would be “a significant departure from existing, settled, and binding Commerce Clause jurisprudence” and could “mark the start of a new, severely contracted Commerce Clause era.”
“Can the federal government no longer criminalize possession of child pornography? Of explosive materials? Of biological weapons?” Higginson asked. “Past the Title 18 level, do we lose regulations on financial transactions? On intellectual property? On endangered species?”
If the financial transactions, intellectual property, or child pornography crosses state lines, then yes, the Federal government may criminalize it. If not, then that would be up to the states. No one is saying these things shouldn’t be illegal- I am saying that it should be up to each state to make their own laws.
That’s what is meant by a Republic- each member of the republic retains its own identity.
A judge in Wisconsin was arrested and charged with obstruction for helping an illegal immigrant escape ICE. The felony conviction resulted in a slap on the wrist, despite the fact that the woman remained unrepentant, claiming it was the right thing to do.
“This is a situation where an otherwise good person upset by immigration enforcement in this country, a sentiment widely shared, made a bad decision in the moment,”
My yardstick is the amount of time spent in jail by those who simply walked through the Capitol after the police let them in, and this woman got no jail time for using her official position to aid a criminal act. Why? The judge who heard the case was the most liberal in the district, and one lawyer said:
Talk about luck of the draw! Following indictment, the Dugan prosecution was randomly assigned to Judge Lynn Adelman. Judge Adelman, age 85, is the most liberal judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and maybe one of the more liberal judges in the US.
But is it really? It seems like every time the left has a case that is important to them, it gets assigned “randomly” to a friendly, liberal judge. Or in this case, do you think it was just judges protecting their own?
