MEG: Welcome to the Stand With Meg Show. I’m your host, Meg, and today we are with Shawn Lee. Welcome, Shawn.
SHAWN: Hello. Thank you for having me.
MEG: Shawn is teaching us how to report fraud within the family court system. He is a criminal law attorney, and he specializes in jury trials. He’s done a lot, haven’t you?
SHAWN: I am a trial lawyer. I have a trial this week. Trials are what I do.
MEG: You had one last week, too, Monday and Tuesday. Yes, you did. At least, unless you lied. If you go to standwithmeg.com and click on The Shawn Lee Report, you’ll see his bio, my bio, and what he is teaching us. We also have all the episodes on here, and right now, this is Episode 6. As you know, when we start these, I have no idea what he’s going to teach me. So what I’m learning, you’re going to be learning at the same time. I try really hard to ask the questions that you might have, so you can really understand what he’s teaching us. So let’s get going. What do you have for us today, Shawn?
SHAWN: I’d like to talk to you about willful ignorance and self-deception.
MEG: Willful ignorance. Okay.
SHAWN: And self-deception. All right. Like my glasses today?
MEG: I do like your glasses. Those are great glasses. Okay, sorry. I feel like you can see the fraud with those glasses.
SHAWN: Yes, the fraud glasses. Okay. Willful ignorance and self-deception. Whom do we blame more, the willfully ignorant or the self-deceived? So look, these are key terms in the law: willful ignorance. And what does that mean? That means you are ignorant, but you’re trying to be ignorant purposely. Trying to be stupid. Like, knowingly indifferent. Willfully ignorant: you’re doing your damnedest not to know. And so that describes a lot of the crimes I’ve illustrated so far with judges and lawyers and various court actors. They know something’s going on, but they don’t want to actually know.
MEG: Okay. What’s self-deception?
SHAWN: Self-deception. And so that’s where you get these circumstances where victims are crying fraud, victims are calling attention to law enforcement, contacting their legislators, contacting the media, and the judge or the lawyer, whoever it may be, is like, “What are you talking about? I don’t know what you’re talking about.” And there’s a terminology for that: willful ignorance, deliberate indifference.
Part of the reason we put things in front of people is so that later on, when they try and claim, “I didn’t know,” you can look back and say, “Yes, you did. Yes, you did. And you were willfully ignorant and knowingly indifferent.” And that is a tort.
MEG: What’s a tort?
SHAWN: A tort is a civil remedy. Whenever you injure somebody, you can file a lawsuit. But knowingly indifferent, or knowingly ignorant and deliberately indifferent, those also can be evidence of criminal acts.
MEG: Oh, okay.
SHAWN: If you know that the laws are being violated… and remember our conspiracy statutes. There are laws which describe what a conspiracy is. 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy: (reading) “If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
So if there’s evidence of criminal activity, then turning a blind eye to that evidence is an act in furtherance of the conspiracy. And that’s why I tell you about willful ignorance.
All right. So there are conspiracy statutes in, I believe, every state, and federally. The federal conspiracy statute is 18 U.S.C. § 371, right here. The state of Missouri has a conspiracy statute, RSMo 562.014. The state of Kansas has a conspiracy statute, 21-5302. Some of these people’s conspiracy theories are real, and there are statutes, because historically we know conspiracies are real. So if you have a court actor, and you can prove that they are willfully ignorant and knowingly and intentionally indifferent, you could have evidence of a crime or an ethical violation.
MEG: Very cool.
SHAWN: Now, let’s talk about a dirty judge.
MEG: Yeah, there’s a lot of them out there.
SHAWN: Do you like catching dirty judges?
MEG: Yeah. Who wouldn’t? It’s fun, I think. I’ve never done it, but I’d like to.
SHAWN: Not my first rodeo. Okay, so look, judges are people, and there’s a lot of judges. People don’t realize how many judges there are, but there are municipal judges, administrative law judges, state judges, federal judges, immigration judges. We got judges coming out the yin-yang. And if even a fraction of 1% of the judges in America are dirty, that’s still a heck of a lot of judges. So how do you find them? Well, the best way is to look for all the people who are complaining. Meet Leslie Ann Celebrezze. You know anything about Leslie Ann Celebrezze?
MEG: No.
SHAWN: Leslie Ann Celebrezze was a family court judge.
MEG: I bet a lot of our followers… because Ohio is pretty big on that. So this is going to be an awesome episode for them, right?
SHAWN: Right. So, Leslie Ann Celebrezze…
MEG: I wonder if she’s on our survey.
SHAWN: She might be.
MEG: I’ll have to look that up. I don’t know. Go ahead.
SHAWN: So anyway, this is a relatively recent case.
MEG: Yes. In 2024, right?
SHAWN: Right. She faced removal from the bench, so that’s what you’re holding right there. But she was also charged with tampering with official records.
MEG: Wow.
SHAWN: Now, in our last episode, I explained to you that typically what happens is somebody commits an error. They either do something they shouldn’t have done, or later on they realize that the thing they did do was really bad, right? And rather than fess up to it, you know, own the mistake, self-report to the bar, self-report to their insurance, take all the steps that a person would do to mitigate the damage, instead of doing that, they double down. They’re like, “I didn’t do it. I didn’t do it.” Instead of doing that, they engage in a cover-up.
MEG: They engage in a what? I’m sorry.
SHAWN: A cover-up.
MEG: A cover-up. Okay.
SHAWN: That’s what Leslie Celebrezze did. She steered a nearly $500,000 family court case to a lawyer who she had a relationship with. And she…
MEG: Like a physical… like a sexual relationship?
SHAWN: So, yes. So she had a relationship with this individual. She steered almost a half a million dollars, if not more, to this lawyer and then engaged in a cover-up to hide that fact, once the person who got shafted in her court started filing requests for records. That’s how she got charged: she tried to change records so that she could hide how she got the case and how she steered it to this individual.
MEG: Wow. And look at the dates on this. It’s… well, amended was February 1st, 2024.
SHAWN: Right. This is a post-COVID case. So that’s the risk these virtual courts run: things happen behind closed doors, purely by wire. And how are you going to find it?
MEG: Right. Is this a note?
SHAWN: Yeah.
MEG: That’s so cool. (reading) “I know it’s early, but my house is still quiet. I know you’re stressed out. You need to make love to me this week. I feel safe when I’m in your arms.”
SHAWN: Oh, this is indeed drama.
MEG: That’s spicy. Spicy, spicy meatballs.
SHAWN: Yes, it is. Jiminy Christmas. But look at there. That’s a wire. (reading) “Please be careful what you say about me and cases in front of [name withheld]. I’ll fill you in on Friday…” Thursday and Friday. That’s the shadow docket. There’s no file stamp on this text.
MEG: Wait, shadow docket. We talked about that in our last episode. Yeah, he explained that.
SHAWN: So, a shadow docket and an ex parte communication: those are communications that are happening outside of the official court record. There’s no file stamp from a clerk on these communications, but nevertheless they steer the outcome of the case. That’s why we in the legal profession call it a shadow docket.
MEG: How did they get all this private information? Like…
SHAWN: So the way this started…
MEG: Because that’s a private note.
SHAWN: Yeah. So the way this started was somebody got shafted in that judge’s court and then exposed them. And it’s a family court. So they started complaining. They started filing requests for records. Some of these records you have to turn over. And that’s when the cover-up started.
Now, there were two types of investigations. There was the investigation here; you can see the Common Pleas Court of Ohio, right? So there was the investigation by the court, and then there was the investigation, the criminal investigation. And then the family law lawyers, obviously, at a certain point had to confront the fact that a member of their bar had an inappropriate relationship with a judge and had been able to steer cases. Massive scandal. Massive scandal. But what I want to call attention to is that these people did not self-report.
MEG: Who’s “these people”?
SHAWN: Leslie Celebrezze and her lover. They didn’t come forward to their victims and say, “This is what we’re doing to you.”
MEG: Right, right. Of course.
SHAWN: They committed the fraud. They covered up the fraud. And it was only because these people did not stop and continued to investigate that eventually Celebrezze was taken off the bench and indicted and convicted.
MEG: Like, convicted? So she got a charge, like…
SHAWN: She got convicted of the felony charge of tampering with…
MEG: Is she in jail?
SHAWN: I don’t know if she’s in jail right now. But she’s now a felon.
MEG: Oh, yeah. You guys have to really look at this. It’ll be on our website at The Shawn Lee Report. (reading) “I’m sorry, I didn’t know who he was. He made it seem like he was a runner for an attorney.” So, like, this is them talking about Leslie?
SHAWN: Yeah, them talking about it. Look at the back page of here.
MEG: (reading) “Government watchdogs questioned whether Celebrezze’s judgment was unbiased.” So in this case, when this happens, do they go back and look at all the orders she put in for these cases?
SHAWN: So, yeah, you betcha. If you were a person in Celebrezze’s court and you caught the, you know, raw end of the deal, well, guess what? You need to go take a good hard look at it.
MEG: Yeah. What is that? (reading) “’I’m Italian.’ Judge Leslie Ann says she kisses everybody. ‘I kiss everybody.’ Mark Dottore…” What is that? That’s just something that didn’t come through.
SHAWN: That’s some sort of photo.
MEG: (reading) “…and kissed him on the lips.” This is cool.
SHAWN: Now, the question I have to ask…
MEG: Oh, yeah, look, they even have text messages between them.
SHAWN: Yep. Those are wires. The question I have to ask is why the lawyer didn’t catch a conspiracy charge.
MEG: Yeah. Why didn’t he?
SHAWN: Remember the elements of conspiracy? Two or more people, with an agreement to violate the laws, and acts in furtherance of the agreement. Look how thick this packet is.
MEG: Oh, yeah. Look, Leslie says, “What the f… Maybe [name withheld] was going to buy her a house.” They’re literally talking about a case.
SHAWN: They’re talking about a case privately.
MEG: And look, there’s three people in this thread.
SHAWN: Yeah. They’re using either iMessage or Android.
MEG: That’s an iMessage. That’s an iPhone.
SHAWN: So this is iPhone. They’re using iMessage to coordinate the court activities. How is that not conspiracy to tamper with a judicial officer?
MEG: Now she’s on Petfinder. Oh my gosh, this is so crazy. So here’s claims. So claims are like charges, counts, correct?
SHAWN: Yeah. So, “civil liability for criminal acts.” Look how long this is.
MEG: I know. They engaged in this. They hurt so many people.
SHAWN: (reading) “Claim two: retaliation against a public servant and witness.”
MEG: They retaliated against somebody for going…
SHAWN: Yeah. And “aiding and abetting.” Jiminy Christmas.
MEG: This is crazy.
SHAWN: Yeah. The sheer length of that document illustrates how much they did.
MEG: (reading) “A judge’s kiss and $450,000-plus in court work.” That’s crazy cool. This is awesome.
SHAWN: And look, there’s nothing that prohibits a judge and a lawyer from having a romantic relationship, but you can’t engage in shadow dockets and conspiracies to commit wire fraud, and having conversations outside the court, outside the presence of the parties, where you coordinate whatever you’re going to do.
MEG: Okay. So, but if a person was smart, and a judge is dating an attorney, they’d make sure their cases probably never went together, right? Couldn’t they do that?
SHAWN: If you’re engaged in a romantic relationship with a judge, and, let’s say, for instance, it was me, right?
MEG: You would pull out, saying, “I can’t. It’s a conflict of interest.”
SHAWN: If I had a romantic relationship with a judge in a courtroom that I had a client with, that’s something where I would feel very concerned that I would, one…
MEG: Hurt your client.
SHAWN: Well, one, that I would need to get an opinion from the bar on whether or not I had any ethical responsibilities. And number two, you might have to disclose that to your client and say, “Look, are you good with this?” In some cases, there are ethical risks. And if you say to your client, “Hey, here’s the potential conflict, and I think it’s a waivable conflict, but I have a duty to tell you. I’m advising you in writing. Here’s what the potential ethical conflict is. Will you waive it?” And the client may say, “Look, you know what? I don’t care what you and the judge got going on.”
MEG: Of course.
SHAWN: If it’s your client, though, and you have the relationship…
MEG: You mean the other party?
SHAWN: Yeah. Well, then the other party. And so then you’re getting into non-waivable ethical conflicts. There are some conflicts of interest that cannot be waived. And so that’s, again, a situation where you could reach out to the bar and say, “Hey, look, here’s what’s going on. Got a romantic relationship with the judge. Got this party, got that party. Here’s the facts. What are my ethical obligations?” And the bar will give you an informal opinion.
MEG: Well, and I will say, I was watching one of these trials, and there were like five or six judges, and one judge stood up and said, “I have to excuse myself because I’m a conflict of interest,” and they left. And then they had another judge come in to sit in their spot, from a different county.
SHAWN: Yeah, and that happens. I’ve had judges who’ve had to recuse before, and recusal by a judge is part of due process. There’s other judges. There’s other courtrooms. If they’re unbiased, it shouldn’t matter. We don’t recuse judges just willy-nilly because we don’t like their decisions, right? But if there’s a conflict, a judge recuses so that the person who’s in their courtroom gets due process. And you can’t weaponize that either. If you don’t like the judge and the way the judge is ruling, that’s an appellate issue. But if there’s a conflict of interest, that’s what recusal exists for.
MEG: Okay, that’s cool.
[Break]
SHAWN: All right, let’s do a quick experiment.
MEG: Okay.
SHAWN: Do you like my experiments?
MEG: Usually they’re fun.
SHAWN: You like the last one?
MEG: Oh, yeah. The… what was that? The text message you texted me?
SHAWN: Yeah. I texted you a text message. It was like a family app, a few episodes ago. And there was what I texted you, which you thought was funny. But then we played around with the idea of how our friendly tele-guardian ad litem would review that text message. You know, if I texted you that I wanted to fry your chickens for our next conference and make omelets out of their eggs, our tele-guardian ad litem, who’s, you know, off in Germany and working 250 cases in three different courts and who’s never actually met anybody, would read that text message and say, “Well, I can bill $500 for reading that message and another $500 for sending wires to the doctor and to the lawyers about how Shawn is harassing Meg about her chickens.” Right?
MEG: That’s a whole other episode. But that was the experiment he did. So, yes, what’s the experiment?
SHAWN: Walkie-talkies.
MEG: Walkie-talkies. Okay.
SHAWN: What is a cell phone?
MEG: It’s a way to communicate with people.
SHAWN: It’s a fancy radio.
MEG: It is. Yeah, absolutely.
SHAWN: We type our little stuff into it, and it either communicates with our Wi-Fi router or it communicates with a radio tower, right? All right. Right now, if I tell you to look at a document, I can show it to you. We can communicate. We can read each other’s language, right?
MEG: Right.
SHAWN: All right. But now we’re going to use the parenting app.
MEG: The parenting app. How do I do this? Where’s the button?
SHAWN: Okay. We are now co-parenting by radio. I’m going to step out now.
MEG: I found it. I found it.
SHAWN: Okay, Meg, you’re now a co-parent on the parenting app.
MEG: Yay. Lovely.
SHAWN: Okay, I need you to pick up that document in front of you and tell me what it is.
MEG: It’s a document.
SHAWN: Actually, we’ll do the social media document… Not that one.
MEG: What?
SHAWN: Not that one.
MEG: This one?
SHAWN: The other one.
MEG: This one.
SHAWN: Meg, this is our kids. We’re trying to co-parent. Why don’t you get this right?
MEG: I don’t know what you’re talking about.
SHAWN: Do you think it might be easier to co-parent if we were in person?
MEG: Yes, I think it would be a lot easier.
SHAWN: How much money do you think is being billed for the people who are watching this conversation?
MEG: A lot, because it could be a lot of communication if there’s multiple kids involved.
SHAWN: Yeah. Okay. So every time we miscommunicate over these walkie-talkies, it’s $500.
MEG: I know. But what happens, though, if there is a situation where it’s unsafe between two parents?
SHAWN: Well, there’s a remedy for that. You meet in the lobby of the police department with a civil standby, and that’s where you probably should communicate, with the officer right there. Law enforcement agencies offer this service all over the United States.
MEG: So you’re saying we should get rid of this way of communicating and focus on in person, if it’s a good co-parenting situation. But if it’s not, then you go to the police station and do it in the parking lot?
SHAWN: This is part of the scheme. You’ve got to pay for the walkie-talkie. You’ve got to pay for the lawyer to read the communications on the walkie-talkie, the guardian ad litem to read the communications on the walkie-talkie, the psychologist to read the communications on the walkie-talkie, to interpret your psychology surrounding your communications on the walkie-talkie. And then the judge is going to take your kids away unless you’re good with the walkie-talkie. All right, you good with that?
MEG: No. I think it needs to be taken down.
SHAWN: Now you’re not working.
MEG: Oh, that. So also, some parents, you can claim it’s not working. “The app’s not working.”
SHAWN: Exactly. And guess what? These walkie-talkies are…
MEG: Wires.
SHAWN: Exactly. I’m coming back in.
MEG: Come back in. Roger that. Over and out. It’s been so long since I’ve walkie-talkied, I kept forgetting to take the thumb off.
SHAWN: Okay. So look, I wanted to demonstrate to you the absurdity of these court-ordered applications. Right now, you and I can communicate. You can plainly see that there’s no tension, no difficulties. We’re just two people trying to work through an admittedly complex topic, fraud, just like parenting is complex. But when we introduced the radios, that impacted things, right?
MEG: Right.
SHAWN: There’s a financial conflict of interest. Okay, look: Billy Flynn, Saul Goodman, Hannibal Lecter, Conahan, our friendly neighborhood tele-guardian ad litem. That little conversation lasted about five minutes, right? And if each one of them, minus the judge, is billing $300 an hour, then 300 times 4 times 0.1 is 30 plus 30 plus 30 plus 30 is…
MEG: Oh, go ahead.
SHAWN: We just got billed $120 for that conversation.
MEG: Yep. So now, not only are we miscommunicating, but we’re going into bankruptcy doing it.
SHAWN: Yep, exactly. And that is part of the scheme.
MEG: Scam.
SHAWN: That’s part of the scheme.
MEG: So, scheme or scam?
SHAWN: Scheme.
MEG: I say scam.
SHAWN: Well, the statute says scheme. Scheme and artifice to defraud. So it can be a scam. What’s the difference between a scheme and a scam? It’s the same thing, but if we’re trying to get somebody indicted, let’s use the terminology straight out of the statute.
MEG: Scheme.
SHAWN: It’s a scheme. Okay, thank you. Look, Cersei Baratheon and Robert Baratheon, they got problems. All right? Hold the radio up. They got problems. Cersei can chew Robert Baratheon’s ass for free, in person, all day, every day, and Robert likewise can do the same thing for free, all day, every day. But when you get these radios involved, all of a sudden, all these people have a financial interest in keeping them talking on the radio. The worse it gets, the more money they make.
MEG: So how do you prove that? By their invoices, to show that they got on and looked at it?
SHAWN: That’s why in the first episode I said, get your invoices.
MEG: Right.
SHAWN: Audit your invoices. Because what happens is these two will co-parent, but they’ll need a divorce, right? They get into the divorce process. They are not getting along. And what do the tele-guardian ad litem and the tele-psychologist do? “I am sitting over here in Bangkok, from my hotel, and it looks like these two are high conflict.” And once you develop the reputation for being high conflict, all they do is bill and bill and bill over your communications. And the thing is, you can be high conflict in person and it costs nothing. But when you get the high-conflict designation on these radios, it costs everything.
MEG: So what happens when you find the invoice that shows that they did that? How do you make it, say, a scheme of wire fraud?
SHAWN: Cersei and Robert, if you pay attention to the shows, are typical of many families. They co-parented. Not perfectly, but they co-parented. And the way that you would see if it was a scheme is, after the lawyers get involved, everything goes to crap, meaning that’s when they start saying you’re high conflict and all that. There are two people who got along, had problems, but managed it. Then the lawyers and the GAL and the psychologist and the judge got involved with their little court-ordered parenting apps, and all of a sudden, the family has not been together in the same room for years. Everybody’s on the internet saying all this crazy stuff, and the family has been bankrupted by mountains and mountains of legal fees, and all of it is wires. None of it happened in person, right? You see what I’m saying?
MEG: Yeah. So here, physical representation, but free. There, they’re not. And they go bankrupt.
SHAWN: Yeah. $120 per argument. Okay, so that’s the scheme. Now, let’s talk about what it looks like to investigate a scheme for the Department of Justice. Have you ever seen this before?
MEG: (reading) “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. Civil Rights Division.”
SHAWN: Then who by?
MEG: Oh, I’m sorry. Department of Justice. Department of Justice investigation. So it’s an investigation by the Department of Justice. It’s a report and summary, and they are looking into… This is thick.
SHAWN: This is thick. So let me tell you what happened. All right?
MEG: Yeah.
SHAWN: I was in law school for this, and so I found it to be incredibly interesting. And I live in Missouri, so the St. Louis riots were something that I followed closely. Missouri has a tendency to set up incredibly corrupt individuals in our courts periodically, from time to time. We do that, and we know we do that, right? The Ferguson municipal courts, what they did was they set up a scheme where they looked at crime as a revenue opportunity. The mentality they had was that if you sped on the road three times in a day and you only got one ticket, then that was two revenue opportunities missed. And if you didn’t have enough money to pay the ticket, then what they would do is they would charge you interest on the ticket that you could not afford to pay. They were charging people for not having proper paint on their doors.
MEG: Oh, wow.
SHAWN: So what wound up happening was Michael Brown was shot and killed, and there were the riots afterwards. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice conducted an investigation into the municipal courts of Ferguson. What they found was that the courts were essentially tax systems.
MEG: Tax systems.
SHAWN: Yeah. They were essentially 100% revenue-based models. Civil rights, due process, right and wrong, debtors’ prisons: none of it mattered to the defense attorneys, the prosecutors, and the municipal judges of these municipal courts. What they cared about was getting people cited, getting interest on the citations, getting them in jail for not paying the interest on their citations, and then getting them to pay their jail bill and interest on their jail bill. And what they had done was they had put the entire population of Ferguson in debt for minor misdemeanors and infractions. They had turned the jail into a tax system.
MEG: That’s crazy.
SHAWN: This is what it looks like when the Department of Justice comes in and decides they are going to target corrupt courts.
MEG: Did you guys get that? Say that one more time, Shawn.
SHAWN: This packet, the investigation of the Ferguson Police Department: this is what it looks like when the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice decides that they are going to investigate court corruption. Now, there’s a difference between the Civil Rights Division and the Criminal Division. The Civil Rights Division, they’re making sure that your civil rights are not being violated, and they can move for injunctions. The Criminal Division is who files an indictment and gets somebody charged with a crime.
MEG: So how did the DOJ hear about this police problem?
SHAWN: St. Louis burned.
MEG: Burned down.
SHAWN: The riots after Michael Brown was killed forced media coverage of what the courts were doing there.
MEG: Okay. So, yet again, a situation where media coverage exposed it. And then they finally… the DOJ had to step in to charge them.
SHAWN: The DOJ had had so much media exposure, so many people… a city burned. And so the DOJ was forced to investigate. And that’s something that’s key about the feds. There’s the times where they do what’s right because it’s the right thing to do, and the times where you force them to do the right thing, because otherwise the people who are currently elected will swiftly become former politicians.
MEG: Right. So that’s one thing I think people need to understand, because I know there’s a lot of comments about how they filed with the FBI, and they’ve done it, and nothing happened. Nothing happened. So I think that’s what we are trying… I’m trying to change people’s thinking, all of our followers: if there’s multiple complaints to the DOJ over the same, you know, district court, that would then flag the DOJ, “Something’s going on, we investigate.” Correct?
SHAWN: The DOJ may have sufficient information to charge a crime, and they may choose not to.
MEG: And that’s where, if you look at another episode, the previous episode before this, Shawn took you through the process of making sure you hold them accountable, the prosecutor, the detective, the people that are involved in these cases, to make sure they’re doing their jobs.
SHAWN: One thing I periodically like to do is to throw shade at cops and prosecutors. Some of these cops and prosecutors are not doing the job. They’re just not doing their job. Okay? And so when you force it to become an issue of public debate, when an investigative journalist publishes something, or when tens of thousands of people sign petitions and it becomes a legislative issue, or when it becomes a central issue to a political campaign, you’re sort of forcing people to do their jobs. And that’s the way our system was designed.
MEG: And that’s why I encourage everyone to get together, you know, together in your area, and file these, but also expose it. Because the more we expose it, the more we have to ask, “Hey, hello, you need to investigate this. This is corrupt, and it’s a scheme.”
SHAWN: The most dangerous teams out there will be the co-parents who went through a divorce and can put their differences aside, and as co-parents, file a complaint with law enforcement and say, “Look, here’s what happened. We were defrauded. His lawyer said this. My lawyer said this. Now here we are, $100,000 poorer. Our relationship was absolutely destroyed for several years. Our children were injured. And now we have united, and we believe we are the victims of a coordinated fraud.” That’s the most dangerous set of victims to these fraud enterprises that there are. And so it kind of incentivizes some of the people out there to get in touch with their co-parent and say, “Look, you’ve got as much of a stake in this as me.”
MEG: But I also could partner with, let’s say, somebody that has the same GAL as me, and then all of our stories are the same?
SHAWN: Yeah.
MEG: And do that, too. Okay.
SHAWN: Yeah, yeah. And if there’s one thing Cersei Baratheon and Robert Baratheon agree on, it’s money. If they think that their kids are due money for their, you know, little dragon-rider college fund, then they’re going to unite on that. He may be a drinker, and he might like, you know, prostitutes, and may have a bunch of bastards out there. And she might be a straight-up narcissistic psychopath. But the fact is, if they came together and united and claimed fraud by this relatively small team, this cast of characters: the crooked lawyers who are filing false information, who have a vested financial interest in these social media companies; the tele-guardian ad litems who have no relationship with anyone anywhere and just log into a portal from their laptop at the local cafe in, you know, Buenos Aires; Dr. Hannibal Lecter, who’s a quack, who can’t find a real practice, so he’s got to get orders from judges for people to come see him; and the judge who’s only on the bench because all these people make a mountain of money from their orders.
If Cersei and Robert get together after being run through this scheme and say, “We’ve got $100,000 in damages and three confirmed counts of wire fraud,” Cersei and Robert Baratheon stand to receive $3 million in damages from wire fraud committed pursuant to a presidential declaration of emergency authorizing video court. Okay, you see where I’m going with this?
MEG: Oh, yeah. See where the math goes. So would, let’s say, two co-parents like that each file their own complaint with the DOJ, or could they go in together?
SHAWN: They could do either one. So: proclamation on declaration of emergency, video courts, DOJ investigation. It’s time for one of these.
MEG: It’s time for one of these.
[Break]
MEG: Okay. So we’ve gone over a lot today. Can you run us through again, just really quick, what we went through today on this episode?
SHAWN: Okay. So the first thing that was really fun was we ran an experiment where we illustrated a scheme. All right? We talked about the presidential declaration of a national emergency and the authorization of virtual courts, i.e., wires: doctors, lawyers, judges, GALs, all…
MEG: And that’s in one of our first episodes together. You don’t go into detail about this. So go back to one of our first episodes, first or second.
SHAWN: Yeah. All this stuff didn’t exist, and now it exists. We talked about how our cast of characters are utilizing these systems. We assessed willful ignorance and knowing indifference: how people know that there’s something going on, but you can put it in front of their face, and they’re like, “I don’t see anything.”
MEG: Yeah. What?
SHAWN: “What are you talking about? You’re crazy.”
MEG: Yeah, right.
SHAWN: “I can’t see it. I’ve gone blind. I’ve gone completely blind. I can’t hear anything either.”
MEG: It’s like monkey see, monkey see.
SHAWN: But it seems to pass every time you quit talking, right? We discussed the actual statutes for conspiracy. So if you’ve got a conspiracy theory, look at the conspiracy law. We discussed what a Department of Justice investigation into courts looks like. This is a real example of corrupt courts that the Department of Justice investigated and issued a written report on. And it’s a thick report. And then this… this was my favorite. This is Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze, a judge who has been thrown off the bench and convicted of a felony. And she was a family court judge.
MEG: All right. So what’s going to be a little sneak peek of the next episode, Shawn?
SHAWN: Okay. There is a new memo that has come out, July 29th, 2026. So it is fresh and hot.
MEG: Hot, like a hot potato.
SHAWN: And guess what? It complains about…
MEG: What?
SHAWN: Remote workers.
MEG: Remote workers.
SHAWN: And children who have been injured by remote workers. We’re also going to talk about telemedicine, telepharmacy, drugs, how drugs come into our courts, how drugs influence people in our courts, and what litigants can do to report crimes related to drugs.
MEG: All right. Well, once again, please like and share if this means anything to you. Support us by liking and sharing, as more people need to hear about this. We are on a mission to expose what is going on with our families in the United States. So please, again, share and like and follow. And if you want to subscribe to my TikTok or Instagram or Facebook, where you can get behind-the-scenes footage of this and also more info on what Shawn’s teaching us, please do so. And also, please donate. And don’t forget to fill out the survey at standwithmeg.com. We’re over 5,600 parents, and over 8,000 court actors are being exposed on there.
And I also want to mention: if a police officer was on your court case, you can put that as a court actor. I have officers in there, teachers. I’ve had teachers in there. So make sure you guys are filling out all your court actors that are involved in your case. So thank you for joining us. Thank you for coming today, Shawn. That was wonderful fun, talking on a little walkie-talkie. And tune in for the next episode. I’m Meg with Stand With Meg, where we are defending parents, protecting children, and being the voice for the voiceless. Shawn, let’s do your slogan. Go.
SHAWN: I’m Shawn, and there’s less criminals in criminal law than in family law.
MEG: Yes, good job. All right, over and out. Bye-bye. Stand with Meg.