If the news has gotten around to you at all, you have heard that the defamation portion of the jury's verdict didn't stick. And so, I wanted to review, they've released the jury's handwritten notes. So, I wanted to look at the handwritten notes with y'all and then go over the jury's verdict and then go over the judge's final judgment on uh what they decided based on the jury's other answers to the questions within the verdict. So, we're starting with the jury's handwritten notes just so we can kind of see an inside look of what they were thinking as the trial was going on and they were passing notes, you know, uh to the judge to get clarification kind of to complain about a few things as well. So, the first note says, "I apologize for the follow-up question, but I'm confused about the names and aliases mentioned in the case. Would it be possible to have clarification on which individual is associated with like whom?" I'm unsure about who Tory Lanes is. And you have to remember when they probably selected the jury, they weren't looking for people that actually knew who these people were. So, it's obviously very likely, especially if they answered honestly, they didn't know who Tory Lanes was and his real name, which is Day Star, right? I forget his real name, too. But they didn't know this. So, they're asking for clarification cuz it's like they're not it's not about them knowing who the celebrities are. It's about them trying to make a fair decision in what happened. So, they're saying, "I'm unsure about who Tory Lanes is. Is Day Star Tony? Is Sunstar the dad? Kelsey is the former friend of Miss Megan?" Like, those were their questions. Like, cuz they're like, "I don't know who these people are." Then it says, "Also, can you go over sustaining, objecting, and overruling one more time?" Then another note said, "Can you ask the I think it says lawyers on the plaintiff's case?" Oh, the so the plaintiff's side to stop typing on their laptop. It's super distracting to hearing the closing arguments. Then another one said, "Which joint exhibit is of the video of the deep fake and which one is of screenshots with emojis posted on Magro's show? And another one says, "Is the deep fake statue or sorry, does I think they meant to say, does the deep fake statute exist in other states or in the case in Texas?" And I'm guessing cuz that's not how they wrote it, but I'm just guessing maybe they were trying to say statute. And then they say, "Where was Miss Pete, which is Megan the Stallion, when Magro shared what happened? Okay. Then we have another one that says, "So they're asking about the folio address of a document. Folio, no, sorry, not of document, but it says folio address should be blacked out. It's the same as finding the address. If they are trying to keep this private even though it's public record and it has a question mark." Then it says, "What is reasonable doubt? Explain how this pertains to Dayar." And I guess obviously the reasonable doubt would have applied for the criminal trial. So when they're asking that because a lot of you know um Magro called Megan the Stallion a noncredible witness in that trial. So of course they have to reference that trial. So they're asking about reasonable doubt in the criminal trial cuz that doesn't that's not for civil trials from what I understand. Another one said, "Are we allowed to take out exhibits from the binder to make sense of timelines since they aren't in timeline order?" And then, so it goes down. So, here's the course answer to some of the questions. It says, "Yes, you may have more exhibits to correspond to a timeline or yes, you may more exhibits to correspond to a timeline." That's how they answer the question. That's what they wrote. I guess everybody's shorthand out here. Then it says, "Could you better define maliciously as in some of us need better examples?" And I'm going down to correspond to the answer. So, the answer to that first one says, "Please refer back to the court's instructions on the law and there and they did attach it." So, we're going to look at those instructions that they received. Then the ne the next question says, "When did Miss Pete, Megan Estallion, register as a voter in Florida and or plus when property screenshot happened date?" And that one says, "Please rely on your recollection of the testimony and evidence presented." So they'll have to go through the exhibits or have taken good notes on the testimony like all right the next one says page pages attached one through five we are confused if we believe half is that enough I'm I'm interpreting is that enough to be considered a yes so the answer says there is no set number and I think that's because if it's preponderance of the evidence that's everything you've seen in the totality what does that lean you toward it. So, it's not like um you can't just give it a numerical value because it's a overall belief in the evidence. All right. So, I'm going to go to the part where they marked it with their pen because that seems like what was important to them at the time connected to these notes. And it says during the time period in which the statements were made, provided, disinterested, and neutral commentary, or I'm sorry, in deciding if defendant Cooper is a media defendant, which plays a key role in this defamation part, you should consider whether the defendant, number one, during the time period in which the statements were made, provided disinterested and neutral commentary on or editorialized on matters of public interest rather than advocated for particular client or personal interest. Okay. So, was she more neutral or was she advocating for Tory Lanes and his dad? Number two, during the time period in which the statements were made, regularly disseminated news or information to the public rather than making an isolated or one-time publication. So, did they normally did Magro normally put out stuff that's, you know, pop culture news and all that stuff, or did she just randomly come on this one time and it's all about Megan, Megan, Megan? During the time period in which the statements were made, impartially disseminated information rather than acting primarily to promote her own business, products or services again with the impartiality. And then number four, during the time period in which the statements were made, operated for the purpose of informing the public about matters of public concern through news reporting, analysis or commentary. And number five, during the time period in which the statements were made, functioned in a similar manner to traditional news media such as newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, or their online equivalents, even if using newer platforms such as blogs or websites. All right, so those were the jury's instructions, their questions, and now we're going to go to the jury's uh verdict first because we have to review their verdict to get to or to look at the judge's final judgment. Okay, so verdict form. And I know I know most of y'all had already seen this, but we got to refresh our memory. So it says, "We the jury unanimously answer the question submitted to us as follows. Miss Pete's claims count one, defamation per se. Question one. Do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper is liable to Miss Pete for defamation per se by accusing Miss Pete of perjury, a felony by lying under oath in a criminal trial when she asserted that Miss Pete was a noncredible witness? I could go down the list of all the differentish that was not true and asked, "Was Megan the Stallion caught trying to deceive the courts again?" Okay. So, off the bat, the jury unanimously said yes, they did find her um liable for defamation, per se. That was the jury's unanimous answer. All right. Then we go to question two. Do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper's defamatory statements caused Miss Pete actual damages? They said yes. Question three. During the time period when the statements were made, do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper provided disinterested and neutral commentary rather than advocacy for a particular client or personal interest? The jury said no. So they believed that at that time Magro had a vested interest in how she was delivering her commentary. Question four. During the time period when the statements were made, do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper regularly disseminated news or information to the public rather than making an isolated or one-time publication? They say yes. So, they do believe and they did observe that she did do other news all the time, other commentary all the time. And during that specific time period of this whole claim, she was still putting out other news. Question five. During the time period when the statements were made, do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper impartially disseminated information rather than acting primarily to promote her own business, products, or services? The jury said no. At that time, they don't believe her information was impartially disseminated. It was more to promote whatever she was promoting, whether that's for um Tory Lane's behalf or her own behalf or whatever. So all right but then question six says during the time period when the statements were made do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper operated for the purpose of informing the public about matters of public concern through news reporting analysis or commentary? They said yes. So they still felt like she was putting out things to inform the public um in the manner of putting out news in general. Question seven. During the time period when the statements were made, do you find by a prepoundonderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper functioned in a similar manner to excuse me to traditional news media such as newspapers, magazines, television, radio, or their online equivalents? The jury said yes, they do feel like she functioned in that similar manner. Question eight, considering your answers to questions three through seven together, do you find by a prepoundonderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper should be treated as a media defendant with regard to the statements made in this case? And the jury said yes, they definitely um considered her that she should be treated as any other media. You know, like whatever you're steps you're supposed to take, if you feel like something was defamatory, they feel like she should have gotten that same thing in that same operation. That's what the jury is saying. Yes, she should be treated as a media defendant, not just somebody that is just getting sued for defamation. Okay. Count two, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Do you find by proponents of the evidence that Miss Cooper intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct toward Miss Pete? And they said yes. Do you find by propoundonderance of the evidence that Miss Pete suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Miss Cooper's extreme and outrageous conduct? Yes. Count three, promotion of an altered sexual depiction. Question 11. Do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper willfully and maliciously promoted without Miss Pete's consent a visual depiction of Miss Pete that she knew or reasonably should have known was an altered sexual depiction? They said yes. So we go to damages question 12. Do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Peach should be awarded compensatory damages against Miss Cooper for defamation per se? The jury said yes. [laughter] Well, obviously if you've seen the news, you know it's not that doesn't stick. But at the time they said yes and in the amount of $15,000. Question 13. Do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Pete should be awarded compensatory damages against Miss Cooper for intentional infliction of emotional distress? They said yes and in the amount of $8,000. Question 14. Do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Pete should be awarded compensatory damages against Miss Cooper for promotion of an altered sexual depiction? [clears throat] And say yes. If your answer is yes, what amount? They said $50,000. Question 15. If you found for Miss P on the defamation claim at question one, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted? They said yes in the amount of $1,000. Question 16. If you found for Miss Pete on the intentional infliction of emotional distress on claim uh claim at questions 9 and 10, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted? They say yes in the amount of $1,000. And they decided that on December 1st, 2025. So now we go to the judges order, aka final judgment on this one, and we see what they say, which is where we're catching up with the news on this point. All right. So, final judgment. This cause came before the court for a jury trial. The issues have been duly tried. The jury rendered its verdict, finding defendant Magro Elizabeth Cooper liable to plaintiff Megan Pete for defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and promotion of an altered sexual depiction in violation of section 836.13 Florida statutes. The jury also rendered his verdict as to defendants's media defendant status, finding that defendant should be treated as a media defendant regarding the statements at issue. As a condition precedent to a defamation suit, section 770.01, 01 Florida statutes requires a plaintiff to serve a media defendant with written notice specifying the alleged false or defamatory statements at least 5 days before filing a complaint. So she would have had to give them notice that they, you know, have seen they see this as defamation and then specify which part they see as defamation and it had to be done at least 5 days before filing a complaint. Since Magro as the jury ruled should be treated as media. Then it says the jury's conclusion that defendant is a media defendant therefore precludes judgment for plaintiff on the defamation per se claim because it is uncontested. So Megan's lawyers did not contest to the fact that the plaintiff Megan did not provide the defendant with a pre-suit notice. So it says in some the jury's verdict supports entry of judgment for plaintiff on her claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and promotion of an altered sexual depiction. Plaintiff is entitled to $59,000 in damages, the amount of compensatory and punitive damages awarded by the jury on those two claims. And it was 75,000 which um obviously is very low. It is a very low amount. The 75,000 was a low amount too. Um and I from what I've heard um they wanted millions which not many people have millions anyway, but they wanted millions. They got this and honestly I'm pretty sure it was more the principle than anything for this one. but $59,000 in damages. And it says requests for cost and fees shall not be submitted until after any post-trial motions are decided or an appeal is concluded, whichever occurs later. The court retains jurisdiction to entertain the request for injunctive relief found in count four of the second amended complaint. The the clerk shall close the case done and ordered in Miami, Florida, the 2n day of December, 2025. All right. So again, I just keep repeating it. The best defense to a defamation lawsuit is the truth. If you are actually telling the truth, that's your best defense. Cuz you can't claim someone defamed you. If you actually did what they said you did or you know what I mean, if you said what they said you said and it could be proven, then you're okay. So, um, also don't state things as fact if you don't know their fact. And I try to be careful about that cuz sometimes I have a strong assumption of something and I have to remember that doesn't mean it's for sure true. That's just what I strongly believe to happen. So um be careful with that. And uh yeah, but Magro has been considered media. So this does set a precedent for other bloggers especially because already like they say newspapers already considered media. all that. The ones that have done um you know traditional journalism, they're already considered media, so they're already protected under that. But for bloggers, content creators, and things like that, you see the criteria for what they were asking. And you know, this could be a precedent for other bloggers that don't have favorable things to say about people, but try don't state things as fact if you don't know their facts. So, be careful with that. All right, so that's all I have for this one. I'll be back with more things later on. And I appreciate y'all's time. All right, talk to you later. Bye.