MEG: Welcome to the Stand With Meg Show. I’m your host, Meg, and this is episode 9. I’m so excited, and once again, thank you, Shawn, for coming to teach us about fraud. So how are you?
SHAWN: Great. I’m really celebrating being a man today, because all I had to do was change my tie.
MEG: I don’t know if you know, but for each different episode, we change clothes. And of course, I try to keep it simple now. I keep the same colored heels and the same pants and just change the top. Then I change earrings, rings, everything.
SHAWN: I changed my tie.
MEG: I know. Not fair. And then I have to do all that. Still, I can change glasses to match. It’s a very woman thing that happens.
SHAWN: I’m sorry. It’s so great being a man.
MEG: We still have hair issues, though, with you.
SHAWN: That’s fair. We do have hair issues. And also, women rule the world, really.
MEG: Who rules the world?
SHAWN: Thankfully, you all are gentle masters.
MEG: All right, what is on the agenda today?
SHAWN: All right, we are going to talk about how to file a law enforcement affidavit.
MEG: So you’re finally going to [unclear] just how to file this?
SHAWN: Yes. Look, Meg, I want you and everybody else to know: no one’s coming to save you, [unclear]. No one’s coming to save you. All of the complaints filed by the Department of Justice and law enforcement agencies that I have shown you thus far, they didn’t come from lawyers. They came from victims who went to either the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for their state or to a law enforcement agency complaining about fraud, correct? All right. So no one’s coming to save you in the court system. You’ve got to learn how to draft your own probable cause affidavit.
MEG: Okay, I’m excited to learn this. I know you guys all are too, because these people are not going to quit, and they’re going to lie, and they’re going to say that you’re crazy and nothing’s wrong, [unclear]. Just like the last episode, we talked about the GAL that continually [unclear]. He’s like, “Well, I’m going to get away with it. I’ll keep doing it.” He didn’t turn himself in, and he was taking advantage of children and stealing money. Arguably, allegedly, human trafficking.
SHAWN: Yeah, because that’s money that would not have existed but for orders appointing that guardian ad litem.
MEG: Correct.
SHAWN: Okay, so these people are not going to turn themselves in. They’re not going to come clean. You can catch them red-handed, and they’re going to gaslight you, and they’re going to say you’re the crazy one and you should lose custody. That’s how it’s going to work.
MEG: Yep. So if we want to catch the tele-guardians ad litem and the tele-judges and the tele-therapists and all these fraudulent court actors, we need to learn how to draft probable cause affidavits. All right, teach us how, criminal law attorney.
SHAWN: All right, hold these up.
MEG: You guys, if you don’t understand any of these, make sure you go check out our other episodes.
SHAWN: All right, so this is our cast of characters. We’re using hypothetical cast members. This is our law enforcement task force, right? These are a mix of feds and, you know, city, county, local law enforcement, and historically, that’s what you do when you take on big cases. But here’s our lowly little police officer. Okay?
And the question that comes to mind in this case with this police officer is: Did the police officer miss on purpose, or is the police officer just swinging the bat for the first time? ‘Cause it’s tee-ball, right? The ball’s on a tee. Okay? The kids are surprised, the crowd is surprised, like, how did this officer miss? Is it a joke? If the officer misses twice, then, you know, the officer is willfully ignorant, deliberately indifferent, trying not to hit the ball. Which is why everybody needs to know how to draft their own probable cause affidavit. So we’re going to look at some real probable cause affidavits. These are complaints for wire fraud, making false information, mail fraud, and other crimes, and they all wound up as indictments.
MEG: So, to put this down in plain English: these are people that have filed memorandums, which is…
SHAWN: It’s an affidavit. So let’s look at this. Okay, hold this up. This is an affidavit.
MEG: Okay. I mean, it’s true. The person that wrote this is the affiant, meaning, “This is what happened to me, and I’m under penalty of perjury, telling the truth,” right?
SHAWN: These cops, this is what they do. They put together an investigation, and they prepare an affidavit, and that affidavit lays out what they know, what happened, who knew what, where it happened, when, why, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Now take a look at this one. You can see there’s no numbers on it, right? It’s not a numbered-paragraph affidavit. It’s just…
MEG: Yeah, I’ll put it on the screen.
SHAWN: So it’s 2025, last year.
MEG: Yep.
SHAWN: And it says State of Kansas, Sedgwick County. This is the affidavit that resulted in that complaint. Remember the complaint against Shawn P. McMahon?
MEG: So we’re talking about the same one we talked about last week, in the other episode? This Shawn is a police officer, right, that didn’t report abuse? Allegedly.
SHAWN: Allegedly.
MEG: Yeah. And so this is an affidavit from the county against him. You can see there are some redacted portions, but by and large, the entire affidavit is left open, and it’s written kind of in letter format.
Okay. Wow. So this is about… In 2021, DCF received a tip that an 11-year-old had been inappropriately touching a four-year-old. The case was assigned to Shawn… How do you pronounce his name?
SHAWN: I would say it’s probably McMahon.
MEG: …who was the detective assigned to it. He was assigned to the Exploited and Missing Children Unit, EMCU. A week later, actually, Shawn (like the name) and DCF investigator [name withheld] from DCF conducted an interview, and she was brought to the Child Advocacy Center by her mother, [name withheld].
During the interview, [unclear] the body parts by using diagrams that [name withheld] had provided. Shawn’s written report stated, and I quote, (reading) “…is a bright, happy little girl who knew her birthdate and articulated very well. She was able to identify body parts on a diagram and could…” I can never say that word. “…differentiate the diagrams from either a boy or girl. She was also able to describe the three locations on the girl and the two locations on a boy that people are not supposed to look at or touch.” As the interview was conducted, she said [details about the child’s family withheld].
It’s hard, because there’s so many things. But give me the rundown of it, because, I mean, people want to know the story, because this happens all the time, right? And so what happens is… I have no time to read this whole thing, and it’ll be on the screen. You can download the pages. But they literally tell everything that happened to this little girl, right, and how this detective did not report and did not follow through, apparently.
SHAWN: Sure. Let me point out a few key things. So I recommend downloading it and looking at it. It’s a good template.
MEG: Okay. Yes, a template.
SHAWN: It’s a good example of quality writing. The person puts a header: State of Kansas, Sedgwick County, right? Now you know where it is, what state, its jurisdiction. That’s a good template. You can copy and paste that into your…
MEG: Keep talking about it. I want to see something good.
SHAWN: Okay. The next thing you can see…
MEG: Oh, so I thought, when I said this earlier, I thought that the county wrote this.
SHAWN: No, the witness. A complaining witness signed it. So that’s why this is a template.
MEG: That’s my template.
SHAWN: Yes. The complaining witness. Okay, so: (reading) “I, [name withheld], badge No. [badge number withheld], of lawful age and being duly sworn on oath, depose and state: Your affiant is a detective…”
MEG: Oh, it’s a Wichita Police Department detective who is investigating a detective? Okay, I got that wrong. So anyway, get your facts straight.
SHAWN: I know, right? So the Wichita Police Department investigated itself.
MEG: Yeah. Okay, so a detective went after another detective. And it was a girl, right? Was it a girl detective?
SHAWN: And then they involved the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Department in June 2025. But it was a woman police officer that said, “Hey, this detective is not doing his job.” So it was somebody in the Wichita Police Department.
MEG: Good girl. Wait a minute, good girl. Yeah, high five for the ladies. Oh, yeah. Okay, so why wouldn’t the guy want to do that? Had there been some connections or something going on? Why didn’t he want to do it?
SHAWN: Well, there’s going to be a jury trial, so we’ll be able to find out.
MEG: So maybe… And that’s in November?
SHAWN: No, that was the other case.
MEG: Sorry, maybe I…
SHAWN: This is a 2025 case. I don’t know when the jury trial is. But that’s part of why you have a jury trial: because the community has a vested interest in knowing the full story.
MEG: Uh-huh. Okay.
SHAWN: So anyway, this is a good template for somebody to copy. At the end, it says, “Further affiant sayeth not,” has their name, and then has their signature, and it’s notarized. And what that does is it shows that this is a person submitting this under oath. They’re a real human being who took their driver’s license in front of a notary. And everything that they’re saying in their affidavit, they are saying under oath, under penalty of perjury, to a law enforcement officer: “This is true.” Okay? And that’s incredibly powerful.
MEG: So I have a question. If a detective in a police station files his evidence and it goes to the DA, and the DA doesn’t look into it and prosecute, that’s the DA’s fault, not the detective’s, correct?
SHAWN: Yes. And historically, that’s how law enforcement agencies get out from under a family or victim who’s upset: they’ll forward the case to the prosecutor’s office. And when the victim or the family comes banging on the door, like, “Where’s justice?”, the officers say, “Well, we gave it to the county attorney’s office. Our investigation is concluded. We forwarded it for criminal charges.” And that kind of gets the victim, the family, off their back. Now it’s somebody else’s problem. Pass the buck.
Now this is where you get these, you know, gutless prosecutors. They care more about their reputation, or some of them are just lazy, or some of them are stupid, some of them are incompetent. Honestly, I would be unemployed if prosecutors got it right all the time. Okay? In fact, by and large, it’s not law enforcement officers who screw up in the cases that I win. They definitely do screw up sometimes in the investigation, you know, their bias, not looking into things that are exculpatory. But prosecutors, they make poor charging decisions, they don’t follow up, they misinterpret the law, they have their personal biases, they have their professional biases.
So yes, once it goes to the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor’s office could have slammed down the case. And there are actual situations where law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices are kind of at war with one another, ‘cause the cops are saying, “You’re not doing your jobs prosecuting these cases,” and the prosecutors are saying to the law enforcement agencies, “You’re not doing your job investigating the cases.”
MEG: Okay. Can DAs get in trouble? Prosecutors, get in trouble?
SHAWN: DAs get in trouble all the time.
MEG: Okay, good to know.
SHAWN: Yeah. I have not, but it is a…
MEG: I’m sorry, go ahead.
SHAWN: Well, I have never brought a malicious prosecution case against a district attorney, but I certainly would.
MEG: Yeah. So then, if a district attorney is doing something… So can parents call the district attorney? Let’s say their child was in foster care or something and got hurt, and no one prosecuted that foster parent. Do they have a right to contact the prosecutor and say, “Why aren’t you prosecuting?”
SHAWN: Oh, yeah.
MEG: Okay.
SHAWN: And these prosecutors are not completely devoid of resources. They have private investigators. And so if law enforcement drops the ball, the prosecutor’s office can hire their own private investigator to conduct an investigation.
MEG: Okay. So once again, don’t give up. You can then ask the police station or sheriff where the file went, what prosecutor it went to, correct?
SHAWN: Look, you can go from place to place: newspapers, investigative news reporters, police department, sheriff’s department, FBI, IRS, DEA, administrative agencies, you know, licensing authorities, and then prosecutors’ offices. And you can go bing, bing, bing, bing, bing. You can go back and forth and get them all, because that’s democracy. We have a system where if somebody over here is not doing their job, somebody over here might.
MEG: Okay, [unclear]. You could almost literally… if all you do is investigate family court and report fraud, you’ll have multiple [unclear]. You know what I mean?
SHAWN: Well, that’s what I’m trying to say. I think that there’s a vibrant black-market economy that needs to be exposed here. And I think that there’s significant assets that could be recovered, for both personal injury attorneys and for law enforcement agencies who want to go after fraud.
MEG: Right, right. I think that this narrative, that if you’re calling family court a fraud you’re just a sore loser, I think it’s lost its steam, because there’s so many victims out there.
SHAWN: Correct. I’ll tell you another thing: law enforcement agents have a really high divorce rate.
MEG: Yeah.
SHAWN: And so many of them know best that the system is flawed, and they’re probably looking for a reason to get into it. So let’s look at another affidavit. This is an FBI affidavit by a special agent. Take a look at this, and look at how short this is.
MEG: (reading) “Connecticut… in support of a criminal complaint.”
SHAWN: So this is an affidavit in support of a criminal complaint.
MEG: (reading) “I am a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have been employed by the FBI for over 22 years. Prior to becoming a special agent with the FBI, I was a commissioned officer…” It’s a lot easier to read when it’s not little dots. I’m sorry. My brain was not good for that. (reading) “…I was a commissioned officer in the United States Coast Guard for approximately six years. I graduated from the FBI Academy…”
SHAWN: So he submitted this…
MEG: (reading) “I submit this affidavit in support of an application for a criminal complaint and arrest warrant for Michael DiMassa for violation…”
SHAWN: So he’s asking them to arrest Michael. I showed you a law enforcement affidavit from a Wichita Police Department detective in state court. This is an affidavit from a special agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a federal crime, specifically wire fraud. Wire fraud. It looks like here, the checks ranged in value from $11,000 to $87,000. These [unclear] were used for 21 cash withdrawals that were conducted by Michael, ranging from $8,000 to $10,000. Nine withdrawals were in the form of checks made out to himself, and 12 were withdrawal slips.
MEG: Wow. Yeah, and it’s pretty simple. You guys have to really download this, because he just says the following date, this is what he did. May 10th, he did this. May 13th, he did this. Pretty easy-peasy stuff. If it’s a Ponzi scheme, you’re just trying to weed out the wheat from the chaff, correct?
SHAWN: Okay. There’s a lot that happens in family court that you don’t agree with, that you don’t like, that’s, you know, complete and total nonsense. And you need to have the ability to separate the actual frauds from all the stuff you just didn’t like.
MEG: Yeah. I’ll really read this, because that’s how I get my brain wrapped around how this goes with family court.
SHAWN: So I would recommend you guys download it. It’s a good template. This is what the FBI is looking for, because they filed an indictment for a Ponzi scheme off of this case.
MEG: That’s cool. Did you ever look into where it went after this?
SHAWN: Well, it went up.
MEG: Went up? What do you mean? Went up to federal court?
SHAWN: Okay, there’s a joke. Why did the prosecutor bring a ladder to court?
MEG: ‘Cause it goes up?
SHAWN: ‘Cause the prosecutor heard the case was going up.
MEG: Hmm. Going on up now. Movin’ on up, right? So some state cases will turn into federal cases. It turns federal when it crosses state lines?
SHAWN: Correct. It could turn into federal for a variety of reasons.
MEG: Yeah. Okay.
SHAWN: Now, this is a case, 2019 through 2021, in the Supreme Court. This was a Ponzi scheme case involving honest services fraud by, I believe it’s an attorney… Percoco, a longtime friend and top aide to former Governor Andrew Cuomo. So this is what it looks like whenever you get into wire fraud and you get into the appellate courts. This is what the appellate courts are looking at. Now, how do you get into the appellate court with wire fraud? So every criminal case starts with a victim walking in. Let’s go back to our cast of characters.
MEG: Well, I get it, right? They didn’t like the outcome from the court on that one fraud, so they went to appellate court.
SHAWN: Well, let’s pull out our cast of characters.
MEG: Okay. You know you love it. Love it. I’m going to drink some water while you’re doing that.
SHAWN: Where are you? Seriously. There she is. Okay, here’s our two victims. All right, I hate to say it, but these are our victims: Cersei Baratheon and Robert Baratheon. Cersei and Robert, they get done with their divorce, and they’re like, “Wow, we really got screwed.” “Okay, I know we don’t agree, but your lawyer should have probably called attention to your drinking and all the potions you’ve been taking from Grand Maester Pycelle.” “And your lawyer probably should have been talking about all the drinking and whoring that you did. And oh, by the way, the domestic violence, right?”
Okay, but because the two lawyers had such a vested financial interest in denying what their own clients were doing, they were able to artificially inflate their fees, correct? And so these two get together, okay, and they go talk to law enforcement, and they say, “We are the victims of fraud committed by a group of lawyers, doctors, and judges, chiefly the grand organizers, Saul Goodman, Esquire, and Billy Flynn, Esquire.” They understand the family law system. They’re players in the family law system. They get it. They know how to artificially inflate their own fees. Okay, so they go, and they complain, and those law enforcement agents get together, and they draft an affidavit in support of a criminal complaint.
MEG: Okay. So the cops interview them, and they prepare an affidavit, and they forward that affidavit to a prosecutor who files a complaint. And then that case goes to a jury trial, correct?
SHAWN: And if they lose, then they go to appellate court. Whoever loses has so many days to file their appeal. And now it’s there, and now it’s a federal court.
MEG: Teaching people this… I mean, I know because I’ve been working, studying, learning, but the normal person doesn’t understand this. So good job. That was great.
SHAWN: It’s almost like I should be in charge of a special DOJ family court fraud unit. Almost like it would be a good idea.
MEG: We should create that position.
SHAWN: Maybe I should be a GS-13.
MEG: Why don’t they have that prosecutor? Yeah, we need a family court prosecutor just going to town on family court fraud around the country. How do we create that?
SHAWN: Well, it would have to come from the Department of Justice, and they would have to create a job opening, right? Well, the application process with the Department of Justice is a giant pain. And then on top of that, there would have to be the willpower within the Department of Justice to go after it. And right now, I don’t think enough victims’ voices have been heard to prioritize it.
MEG: They don’t have enough complaints, right? There’s just not. That’s why you are screaming to the mountains. Guys, let’s start doing this, all of us, because yes, there needs to be an office desk full of them, and they’re like, “Oh, crap, we need a DOJ just for this. A prosecutor just for this.”
SHAWN: Yes. This is nothing new. This is just a new spin on historical corruption, right?
MEG: Okay.
SHAWN: Corruption has always existed.
MEG: Well, and, you know, there’s gag orders on people, but people are starting to speak up and say, “No, no gag orders here.”
SHAWN: Yes. All right, take a look at this. This is one more criminal complaint: affidavit in support of criminal complaint and arrest warrant. This comes from a special agent with the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division.
[Break]
SHAWN: So he is a special agent for the IRS, and he’s saying this person is money laundering. Here’s what’s happening, and he wants an arrest warrant. The story of what happens is called the background [unclear].
Look, if you’re committing a crime, right, then you have to deal with the fact that you have the proceeds of crime. So if you’re laundering money, and let’s use the allegations against Elliott. All right, Elliott is alleged to have taken all this money from all these GAL appointments.
MEG: Yep.
SHAWN: Those are the proceeds of crime. Did he pay taxes on all the proceeds of his crime? Why isn’t there an IRS money laundering complaint tagging along with the bank fraud? Because he had to do something with all of this fraudulent income. And so that’s where the IRS gets involved, and why you have multiple different avenues. You go talk to your local police department, they’re like, “Oh, that’s a civil issue. We’re not getting involved.” You talk to your sheriff’s department, they say, “That’s a civil issue. We’re not getting involved.” You talk to the FBI, and they’re like, “Well, that’s a local law enforcement thing, okay? And that’s a civil issue.” Maybe the IRS will take you seriously. Maybe they’re sitting around, and they’re like, “You know what? We know that lawyer’s dirty. We know that judge, that GAL, is dirty. And the amount of money that you’re claiming they billed on your case is not reflected in the tax returns they filed.” Have you ever heard the phrase “more than one way to skin a horse”? Right?
MEG: So how… But this is IRS. So going against this, you’re just trying to show that people in the system are… you know, filing these complaints, because people like us, we can’t ask the GAL to give their… We can’t subpoena their IRS documents to make sure they’re reporting all the money they’re getting, right?
SHAWN: The detective could. That detective could, okay? Law enforcement has a variety…
MEG: And you don’t have to have proof, like you said. You just have to say, “This might be happening.” You just come in with what you’ve got, and then they will go into an investigation, and then they can do all that, right?
SHAWN: Okay. Come in with what you’ve got. You’re not going to get in trouble for bringing information to a law enforcement agency, right? You will get in trouble if you bring false information, right, if you know the information is false. Okay? And I don’t mean being misunderstood or misunderstanding something or being incorrect about something. I mean you are bringing them false information. They’ll charge you over that, right?
Okay. So this is another law enforcement affidavit for your followers to look at and say, “I’m my own advocate. I’m going to look at this. I’m going to create my story.” Now, where am I going with this? Ask me where I’m going with this.
MEG: Where are you going? Where are you going with all this information, Shawn?
SHAWN: Well, let’s talk about how to take down criminal syndicates. How to take down lawyer… okay. (reading) “Lawyer disc…” Oh my gosh, I’m getting tired. You can tell. My brain. (reading) “Lawyer disciplinary system to undergo restructure.”
MEG: Oh, yeah, this is the [unclear]. Yeah, this is spicy. This is good. Yeah, I know what this is.
SHAWN: So the Supreme Court of Missouri and the office of the chief that disciplines attorneys came together to do what? They’re changing up their system.
MEG: They are changing up the way attorneys get reviewed, to see if they are doing something wrong?
SHAWN: Correct. A lot of your viewers, and indeed everybody everywhere, complains that you go to the disciplinary authorities, and they’re all buddy-buddy. They’re all friends with one another. They know each other, they see each other in court, and so you’re like, “Wait a minute, I just saw you two high-five in the hallway. How are you investigating… for doing the same thing you’re both doing?”
MEG: Like, that one video, I proved they’re all friends, like, [unclear] especially. They’re all buddy-buddy.
SHAWN: So what we did have in Missouri was a system of regional councils: basically, regional attorneys who practice in the area would oversee the ethical complaints. And what it devolved into was a buddy network.
MEG: Well, yeah. So you’re saying that these attorneys that are all in the same county, let’s just say region, okay, they’re the ones that look at the complaints against the same attorneys that work in the same region, right?
SHAWN: Yeah. I look at that, and it’s a plainly flawed system. I can see why they set it up originally, like, “Well, we should have people who know how this is done overseeing people who oversee how it’s done.” But in practicality, it’s completely conflicting.
MEG: Yeah, yeah. Okay.
SHAWN: These regional attorneys and these regional councils, they’re buddy-buddy. They protect one another, and they go after people who are either not doing the same thing they’re doing or who do commit mistakes, and prevent new blood from coming into the family law bar, right?
MEG: Not to mention, they all attend the AFCC. They all rub shoulders. They’re all besties.
SHAWN: I mean, they’re not. There’s a lot of bad blood in the family law bar, but there’s also a lot of silent agreements to protect one another.
MEG: Correct.
SHAWN: ‘Cause if you’re going down, I’m not going down. Like, we protect… They will ask for sanctions against an opposing party, but they will never ask for sanctions against an opposing attorney, right?
So long story short: if I’m a lawyer, right, and this happens to me regularly… let’s look at our cast of characters. Look, you’ve got Cersei, I’ve got Robert. Let’s say I represent Robert. And this is me in my professional life. I have people like Robert all day, every day. They want me to say things, they want me to push things, they want me to file things. And my first duty is to look at Robert and say either, “Yeah, that has merit to it,” or, “Look, I’m not filing that. There’s no merit to it. It’s false information. I’m not going to file something that has no merit, even though you believe it and you want me to do it and you’re paying me.”
The simple fact is, I have ethical and professional responsibilities. I’m not putting false information into the record for you, right? I’ll do a variety of things. You know, I’ll pull a lot of tricks, I’ll play a lot of cards, but I always make sure that I am not violating the professional ethical rules, the rules of civil and criminal procedure, for my client. However, that’s not what these two do, right, in family court. These two: “Well, I believe my client. My client says this. My client has these text messages. My client has this phone call and these recordings. And so I’m filing whatever my client files.” And that’s how the fees get artificially inflated. And then whenever their clients file a bar complaint, their buddies on the regional council who oversee this approve it.
And so what the Missouri Bar has done is: in 2027, January 1st, 2027, all complaint investigations will be conducted in the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel by full-time staff. No more of these little regional buddy networks blessing off on these people and what they’re doing. Now it goes to the central office in Jefferson City, and the central office in Jefferson City hires people to investigate. It’s a professional firm, and they are going to come down with the hammer.
MEG: And that would include GALs, if the GALs are attorneys. Now, is that all complaints? You know how with behavioral… like, for therapists, if there’s a complaint against a therapist, we have to send it to this department?
SHAWN: Yeah. So it’s all of the complaints about everyone, everybody.
MEG: That’s cool.
SHAWN: All the bar complaints, all the complaints in Missouri, go to Jeff City. No more of these little regional networks of buddies who get appointments and get on boards and then, you know, cover for one another. Jefferson City is now going to set a standard statewide.
MEG: So how did they get that accomplished? Who would have brought that up? Would people have come and, you know, complained? How do we get that in our own state?
SHAWN: So people have been complaining, right? I mean, I’ve complained, families have complained, other lawyers have complained. We know that this system is problematic. It doesn’t work. And it dramatically calls into question the legitimacy of our courts and our bar associations, which is something that we as lawyers don’t like, because we want to police ourselves. The fact that so many people are being let down in these family court systems, it’s starting to raise awareness, and it’s calling into question the legitimacy of our profession.
MEG: Yeah, I feel like people are really starting to realize, and people are getting louder and speaking up. So we could literally take this, right, and send it to all legislators, judicial committees, complaint committees, and say, “We want this in our state.” January 1st, 2027, this goes into effect.
SHAWN: Yes. Now here’s how this is fun. Okay? You know how I like to think ahead, and I like to do things that are really complex and fun. And sometimes maybe some people go to jail and lose all their money. Bad people, right? Okay. You see these affidavits by law enforcement. Nobody says that you can’t file the same affidavit with this new committee and law enforcement.
MEG: Oh. So in Missouri, though… they don’t have this, but you’re saying that you can do it there, and your family puts it together here?
SHAWN: Well, let’s grab our cast. Cersei and Robert get together, and they’re like, “Wow, we really got taken by our lawyers for $150,000. That was a $15,000 case, at most. And these two lawyers artificially inflated the case with their tele-guardian ad litem, tele-therapists, you know, tele-social workers and tele-psychologists and tele-courts. They artificially inflated what was a $15,000 case into a $150,000 or a $250,000 case. We need to get together. We need to draft an affidavit for law enforcement together, and we’ll file it with the city police, the county.”
MEG: So you can do DOJ, state police, Department of Justice. So you can follow that same thing into all of them.
SHAWN: And then the brand-new, spanking brand-new, January 1st, 2027, centralized Office of Chief Disciplinary…
MEG: Only Missouri, though.
SHAWN: Only Missouri. And then on top of that, take it to the press.
MEG: Hmm. They’re not going to like me.
SHAWN: And that’s how you take out… Think of this table, right? This is a strong table. Not really, but okay. I cut one of the legs out…
MEG: Oh, yeah.
SHAWN: I attack all four legs at once, and that table is going to fall.
MEG: Of course. I don’t think you’ve ever said that. Huh. Wow. Once again… ding, ding, light bulb.
SHAWN: All right, so let’s get our file in order. Okay, let’s get our nice, fat, healthy file ready, ‘cause this is getting to be a chunker. There’s our cast. These are all the template examples. These are all templates of affidavits involving crimes alleged against lawyers, and it is lawyers driving the show.
MEG: Uh-huh. This is evidence of people getting prosecuted, correct?
SHAWN: Yep, these are live cases. These are live criminal cases.
MEG: You don’t have a folder for it?
SHAWN: I forgot my manila folders. I have folders in my car. That’s the Lindsay Clancy.
MEG: Yeah, that we need to talk about.
SHAWN: Yes, we do. Meg, I’ve got bad news. Our folder has blown its belt out. We’re going to need a second fraud folder.
MEG: Really?
SHAWN: Yeah.
MEG: Wow.
SHAWN: And you know what’s terrible? You might have to get a wheelie cart and a file cabinet.
MEG: Fortunately, I have a spare file cabinet with all, like, my evidence.
SHAWN: I should say, you might wind up with a fraud file cabinet.
MEG: So when you do all that, you have to call whoever you’re filing it with and ask if they can take PDFs, a hard drive or, you know, a thumb drive, or if they want paper, ‘cause they’re all different.
SHAWN: Right. So the best thing to do is to take them a digital copy and a paper copy. But sometimes, what I’ll do is I’ll give people paper copies and no digital copies, if I know that they’re basement-dwelling internet trolls who don’t look at the things that I provide them. And then they have a paper document on their desk.
MEG: Great. So I’ve been looking into a complaint against somebody in Kansas, and they said that you had to print everything. And I emailed the secretary, and I said, “Look, I have all this.” And they said, “Actually, put it on a hard drive or thumb drive and mail it.” So you can always call and ask: How do I file this? Where do I put it? And what do I need to prove?
SHAWN: Look, there’s a tried-and-true method to get information from people to people, and that is address it to them in the mail. Give them the paper copy, and it will sit on their desk or in a file cabinet until they get to it. Whereas we all know the things on our phones: once we scroll past it, it’s gone forever.
MEG: Yeah. Okay.
SHAWN: Let’s talk Lindsay Clancy. (reading) “First amended complaint and jury demand against Jennifer Tufts, [other defendants’ names unclear], South Shore Health System Inc., McLean Hospital, and Women & Infants Hospital, Rhode Island.”
MEG: Yeah, these are all the doctors and companies that took care of Lindsay.
SHAWN: I think that the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts is completely gutless. If these people are not indicted for telehealth fraud by the end of 2026…
MEG: They talk about it in here, ‘cause I read a lot of it, and you guys can download it as well on the website. But they talk a lot about telehealth.
SHAWN: Well, that’s because it was all done via telehealth.
MEG: Yep.
SHAWN: So you remember me showing you our chart about substance-induced disorders, right?
MEG: Yep.
SHAWN: Let’s look at our tele-pills right here.
MEG: Oh, real quick: Rosemary, this attorney. She was at trial the whole time and watched her other attorney, Kevin Reddington, do it.
SHAWN: Yeah, because they’re going to town. There is sort of a civil war going on in our courts right now, because there’s people like me and Reddington and this Rosemary who are like, “Look what you did to my client under the guise of mental health. This is crime. You are committing criminal acts against people who are sick and need help.” And then there’s all the lawyers who are out there who are like, “Well, it’s her fault. She’s, you know, a killer. And she did all these things wrong.” And the simple fact is that she was on 10, something like 10 or 15…
MEG: Yeah, a prescription drug cocktail. Criminal attorneys who have spoken about it are all in favor of her, meaning she was completely missed, not helped at all.
SHAWN: These drugs carry with them a black box warning that says, “Warning: homicidal acts and ideations.” Look at this chart of diagnoses associated with substances. How exactly are you supposed to video-conference and confirm that your client has not turned homicidal while taking your 15 tele-pills that you prescribe a day? Right? It’s a complete, total farce. So I’m looking forward to seeing some sort of enforcement action, whatsoever, out of the Department of Justice, because I think the evidence that we have from Dr. Tufts’ testimony under oath reflects telehealth fraud.
MEG: So could an attorney file a complaint to get them arrested? Or, I mean, I guess anyone involved in her case. She could even do it if she wanted to, right?
SHAWN: I don’t think she’s mentally…
MEG: No, I don’t think she is. I’m just saying, in that situation. Who would then file to indict them?
SHAWN: So law enforcement has to conduct an investigation. I think the most likely candidate would be Patrick Clancy, because he’s the, you know, surviving heir of the entire Clancy family. And basically, what he would allege is, “Look what these people did under telehealth to my wife.” You know, let’s start with the benzos. So remember, before Clancy got big, I brought in the FDA guidelines regarding…
MEG: Yeah, that’s episode five or six.
SHAWN: Okay. Look at the black box warning on Xanax. She was prescribed multiple benzodiazepines and antidepressants in order to treat the side effects and symptoms of the benzodiazepines. That’s the classic opioid pill mill model. You get somebody hooked on a mind-altering, addictive substance, and then you’re prescribing her more drugs to help with the other drugs that you prescribed her.
MEG: Right, right.
SHAWN: And there’s no backing out for the criminals who participate in these crimes. And that’s what I think these people are. I think they’re criminals. Okay? The way these criminal actors work is, once they get you on a drug, it’s only up from there. There’s never a plan to say, “We’re going to try this for three months, and then we’re going to wean you off.” It is always, “Let’s put you on this.” And then once you’re dependent upon it, whether it’s something hardcore like opioids and amphetamines or something simple like antidepressants, they get you on it. And then after you start to exhibit side effects and symptoms, you know, the black box warnings and all that stuff, then they treat you as somebody with pseudo-addiction. They say, “No, you’re not addicted to a controlled substance. This is your prescribed medication. You are insufficiently medicated. And so we need to up your dosage of the controlled substance,” creating a greater dependency, greater symptoms of dependency. “And we’re going to treat the side effects and symptoms of your dependency with sleep medication, antidepressants, stomach medication.”
MEG: Right, right.
SHAWN: And that’s how she wound up on over 10 to 15 telehealth prescriptions. Now, I think the administrator for the DEA has completely failed the American people in the performance of his duties. And here’s why…
MEG: Yeah, why didn’t the DA go after them? The DA, or DEA, I’m sorry. Why didn’t anyone go after these doctors, after this all happened, to investigate the doctors?
SHAWN: Well, a lot of prosecutors are gutless, a lot of them are incompetent, a lot of them are political hacks, and a lot of them are underfunded and undertrained. With that being said, now that it’s such a publicly available issue, why aren’t they going after them now?
MEG: Exactly. Right, right. I bet they will, hopefully, because people are starting to really push them.
SHAWN: No, I don’t think they will.
MEG: Oh.
SHAWN: And that’s why I’m criticizing them so heftily, because I don’t think they will. So the DEA, in 2020, published a rule change allowing for telehealth extensions. There was this thing called the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Act. Ryan Haight was a guy, I think he died, but basically, he had been buying drugs online. Prescribed drugs. And the Ryan Haight Online Drug Act prohibited the type of online controlled-substance sales that caused that situation. In 2020, in response to COVID, the DEA abandoned the Ryan Haight Online Act in favor of telemedicine. And so all of a sudden, you can sell controlled substances online. And so from 2020 to 2026, the DEA has been tolerating these online pharmacies and these online pill mills that have pushed as many controlled substances as they possibly can on as many people as they can, with this outcome.
MEG: Yep.
SHAWN: Now, I want you to imagine that Patrick Clancy filed for divorce before his wife murdered their children. What would her defense have been?
MEG: “Yeah, these are my prescribed medications.”
SHAWN: He would have hopped up and down and been like, “You’re a drug addict! You’re buying drugs online, addicted to online drugs.” And these two, you know… look here. Let’s pull out our cast. Dr. Hannibal Lecter would have been like, “Well, these are prescribed medications,” right? That’s where the telehealth and the family court frauds mesh, because they don’t exist independent of one another. Telehealth fraud is over here: multibillion-dollar industry, potentially trillion-dollar industry. Family court fraud over here: multibillion-dollar, potentially trillion-dollar industry. And they mesh, because so many of these family court cases involve substances that come out of pharmacies.
MEG: Yep. Well, I mean, now Amazon has their own prescription place you can call on. There’s a telehealth doc, right, at Amazon. And let’s say that Patrick Clancy did file for divorce and did ask for a drug test. It wouldn’t come up negative, because she got prescription drugs.
SHAWN: So, the script. Exactly. She would have gone to the local drug-testing company. She would have shown them a prescription for the controlled substances that she tested positive on. And then the court would have retaliated against him, right?
MEG: Yep. All right. Well, what’s next on the fraud? What are you going to teach us next time, Shawn?
SHAWN: So it’s time to put together a draft affidavit. We’ve laid out what the fraud is, how the fraud works, how law enforcement works, how licensing authorities investigate ethical issues. It’s time to put together a draft affidavit, and it’s per court actor, right? Our cast of characters here. It is time for Robert Baratheon and Cersei Lannister to prepare an affidavit for a law enforcement investigation and an ethical investigation into the criminal enterprise that artificially inflated their 15,000… uh, denarii.
MEG: Oh, here we go.
SHAWN: I think they [unclear]… gold pieces. They’re 15,000 gold pieces.
MEG: He’s talking Game of Divorce.
SHAWN: She was supposed to get the Red Keep. He was supposed to get Harrenhal. She wound up with Dorne, and he wound up with custody of none of his natural-born children. It’s time for them to file an affidavit, and to prepare an affidavit against the cast of characters committing these frauds, and file them as many places as they want.
MEG: So that’s the next step: a draft affidavit that everybody can look into in order to pick apart family court fraud.
SHAWN: They should.
MEG: So we’re going to do one per court actor, right? So the doctor, the therapist, the GAL, because they’ve got tons of fraud.
SHAWN: Yeah, it’s going to be an affidavit that lays out racketeering and conspiracy to commit wire fraud by all these bad actors, in accordance with the research that we’ve put together. And then they can take that whole thing at once and take it in, right? Look, our fraud folder is bulging in the middle.
MEG: Yeah, and it got even heavier than this. Oh my gosh. Yeah, a lot heavier than earlier. Pom, pom, pom. Let’s do it. What’s the Rocky…?
SHAWN: I don’t know. Rocky what? What about Rocky?
MEG: No, the song when he’s running.
SHAWN: Yeah, like… (hums, then sings “Eye of the Tiger”)
MEG: Yeah, “Eye of the Tiger.” Good job.
SHAWN: Thank you.
MEG: All right, well, thank you so much. I’m excited to start building this and seeing how our parents report fraud within our government, well, to our agencies.
SHAWN: We’re going to put together an affidavit. And I think what we need to do is have sort of a fun episode where we do a treasure hunt. We take our affidavit, we lay pieces of it out with yarn, and every time somebody finds the next piece, they get a donut.
MEG: Okay. A donut.
SHAWN: And that way, we can incentivize our nice law enforcement agencies to stop saying “that’s a civil issue,” right?
MEG: Exactly. All right, well, thank you for joining us today, Shawn. I’m Meg, with Stand With Meg. And Shawn, let’s do your slogan, like we like to do at the end of every episode.
SHAWN: There’s less crime in criminal law than in family law.
MEG: So good. So proud of you. All right, tune in next time. Please join us next time for The Shawn Lee Report. All right. Stand with Meg.