All right, got to jump in there with both feet. So, if you know me, you know what's about to happen. Just about to read through the documents. It just came out that the general headline is that Megan won her civil lawsuit. From what I saw, there might have been some yeses and some nos. So, we're going to go over all of it. So, first I wanted to go over her complaint so we could see what was she suing for, and then we'll read the jury's verdict. So, this is a kind of a no frills thing. It's just this is how this is me. So, all right. So, we have Megan Pete versus Magro Cooper. And it says, "Nature of the action. For years, defendant Cooper acted and continues to act on behalf of Dayar Peterson, also known as Tory Lanes, as an online rumor mill, churning out falsehoods about Miss Pete to her tens of thousands of social media followers. Since Mr. Peterson's 2020 indictment for felony assault with a deadly weapon after choose after shooting Miss Pete to his later conviction in December 2022, up through today, defendant Cooper performed Mr. Peterson's public bidding to denigrate, belittle, insult, and spread false statements about Miss Pete on her online social media platforms for no other reason than to bully, harass, and punish Miss Pete for Mr. Peterson's conviction and to tarnish her reputation, causing emotional distress. The length to which defendant Cooper goes to harass Miss Pete knows no bounds. For example, she has gone so far as to share a deep fake porn video of Miss Pete. In June 2024, defendant Cooper encouraged her 27,000 exf followers to view an ex post by Bimbella that shared a doctorred artificially created video of Miss Pete purportedly engaged in sexual acts without Miss Pete's knowledge or consent. After defendant's conduct led to a firestorm of negative reactions from others, defendant doubled down in a YouTube video on June 9th, 2024, claiming Miss Pete was a professional victim and denying any wrongdoing. But defendant is wrong. Her conduct was an unlawful promotion of an altered sexual depiction and caused Miss Pete severe emotional distress and reputational harm. In another instance, on September 2nd, 2024, defendant Cooper accused Miss Pete of having a severe drinking problem who needs to spend more time in a relationship with herself and her therapist and maybe AA. Defendant has no personal relationship with Miss Pete and had no basis to make such outlandish and false claims. In yet another instance on July 30th, 2024, defendant Cooper went so far as to cast doubt on Miss Pete's mental status, asking her followers if Miss Pete has a guardian or no, and whether Miss Pete has ever been deemed like legally that word. Defendant's low blows did not stop there. defendant consistently resorted to name calling Miss Pete, characterizing her as an angry black woman and a lion ass hoe during her on live on live streams. Additionally, in or around June 29th, 2024, defendant tried to pull information on Miss Pete's father in an attempt to publish private information about her family and cause damage to Miss Pete's reputation. >> [clears throat] >> Miss P has repeatedly tried to stop defendant Cooper's misconduct and asked what it would take to stop being posted on defendants platforms. In response, defendant provided the snide advice that Miss Pete should just get over it or go away. Okay. Defendant Cooper also made numerous false statements about Miss Pete regarding Mr. Peterson and the trial. Defendant's conspiratorial relationship with Mr. Peterson is troubling. Defendant acts as a paid surrogate used to spread Mr. Peterson's lies about Miss Pete. For example, on October 27th, 2024, defendant Cooper falsely claimed that the firearm Mr. Peterson used to shoot Miss Pete was not produced during the trial because it was missing. That is not the case. The firearm remains in the custody of the Los Angeles Police Department. [clears throat] Defendant Cooper could have easily verified this information, but instead chose to ignore it and spread lies about the integrity of the trial and related investigation. Additionally, defendant Cooper spread the false rumor that Mr. Peterson did not shoot Miss Pete, even after unanimous jury of Mr. Peterson's peers decided otherwise. For instance, on October 28th, 2024, defendant Cooper posted a video on her ex account directed at Miss Pete and asked, "Can you even prove that you were shot?" The state did prove that fact, and Mr. Peterson is currently serving a 10-year sentence for it. In May 2022, defendant posted an image of a Los Angeles Police Department reported from Mr. Peterson's arrest, stating that the first doctor to see Miss Peak confirmed laceration due to stepping on glass, not a firearm wound. However, the information from the police report was recorded before bullet fragments were discovered in Miss Pete's foot feet during surgery, which completely debunked defendant's post. That did not stop bloggers from picking up on defendants's post and spreading the misinformation. Defendant also attended the trial and live streamed her falsehoods during hearings. Defendant's post consistently spread misinformation challenging the stories of witnesses and their credibility while sharing their names online amounting to witness intimidation. During the trial, defendant posted the following tweets. One second. Okay, so one says, "Talking about credible when we all sitting in there, shut the f up." Um, this is Magro's tweets. And then another one from Magro says, "Kelsey spoke to prosecutors and told them one thing, but today says she lied. Kelsey says she never saw Tori pull a gun on Megan or shoot her." Another one says, "All this case taught anyone was that your father, brother, cousin, or son could face over 20 years in prison without proper evidence, a botched investigation, and another likely suspect just because noncredible witnesses said you did something." And y'all slow a cheering. More recently, after posting about a lawsuit a former videographer filed against Miss Pete in April 2024, and Miss Pete's motions to dismiss, defendant also falsely claimed that Miss Pete was caught trying to deceive the courts again, referencing her testimony in the trial. Enough is enough. Miss Pete, a victim of violent crime and champion of women's rights to her millions of fans worldwide, will no longer stand for defendants campaign of harassment. She brings his complaint for damages and equitable relief to end defendant Cooper's vendetta against her. Megan Pete. Oh, sorry. The plaintiff is Megan the Stallion. Megan Pete, a performance artist, um, citizen of Florida who permanently resides in Miami, Florida. The defendant, Magro Elizabeth Cooper, also known as Magro Grahams, is a citizen of Texas who permanently resides in Houston, Texas. Then they justify their jurisdiction and venue on why it's being brought to Florida. And then factual allegations. Defendant is a malicious actor that operates social media accounts that spread false and harassing content. Defendant Cooper is a well-known online social media grifter. Strong word who traffics in false and sensationalist narratives. Defendant controls and operates an exformly Twitter account under the screen name at Mobsworld, Instagram and Tik Tok accounts under the username at Magrogram GS and a YouTube account under the screen name Mob Radio collectively social media accounts. Defendant has the power to determine the subject matter and specific content that is published on her social media accounts and to remove or refrain from publishing content if she chooses. Defendant is the sole writer and or editor of every post on her social media accounts. On information and belief, defendant Cooper deployed and continues to deploy fake bot accounts on her social media accounts to attack any social media users who defend Miss Pete or criticize defendants characterizations of Miss Pete. Throughout Mr. Peterson's trial and through today, defendant Cooper has engaged in a campaign of harassment on behalf of Mr. Peterson to spread false and harassing messages about Miss Pete on her social media accounts based on her close relationship with Mr. Peterson and his father. In June 2024, a deep fake video purporting to show an artificially created version of Miss Pete engaging in sexually explicit acts circulated on the internet. It is unknown who created the deep fake video. Miss Pete had no knowledge of or involvement in the creation or distribution of the deep fake video, nor does she consent to to or authorize the creation or distribution of the deep fake video. On or about June 8th, 2024, Defendant Cooper published on her ex account a post that encouraged her followers to watch the deep fake video. And we saw the tweet on that one. On June 9th, 2024, defendant Cooper published a video on her YouTube account that addressed her ex post related to the deep fake video. In the YouTube post, defendant shared an image of Miss Pete over a news, oh, I'm going to say Chiron that questioned whether Miss Pete is a professional victim. A true and correct copy of the screenshot of the image is below. And here's the screenshot for us to see as well. You got people chatting on the side. Um, and then it says, "Is Megan the Stallion a professional victim?" And then it says, "Defendant then shared a screenshot of an ex post dated June 8th, 2024 that directed her followers to go to my likes. A true and correct copy of the screenshot of the image is below." So, here's that part where Magro said, "Go to my likes." um because I watched other people um basically she didn't Magro didn't directly show it but you know if you if people make their likes public if they go like something you can go see their history of what they like and that's how people were able to see the deep fake video. Um, defendants likes page included a post that promoted, transmitted, posted, and or shared a publication of the deep fake video and thus provided her followers access to the deep fake video. Defendant Cooper affirmed this in her YouTube post. She stated that she told whoever follows me on social media to go to my likes to see what it is that we're discussing, which confirmed that she encouraged her followers to watch the deep fake video. Most recently on October 27th, 2024, Defendant Cooper made the false and outlandish claim that the firearm Mr. Peterson used to shoot Miss Pete had gone missing. Defendant Cooper tweeted, "Didn't I tell y'all that the gun was never presented in court and that ain't make no damn sense? They gave the serial number and Breeze passed it. Like, first off, who is it? Origin point, please." And then there's the tweet of her saying that. And then there's a highlight of a page that says, "Without this exculpatory evidence, petitioner cannot file any claim of innocence as he is unable to conduct further testing since the firearm and bullet fragments are missing." Then it says, "Dendant Cooper's statements recklessly disregarded the truth and suggested that the firearm was never presented in court because it had allegedly disappeared. It has not. The firearm remains in the custody of the LAPD. It is standard procedure in California criminal cases to show an image of the firearm in question rather than present the firearm in court. Defendant Cooper could have easily verified this information but chose to ignore it and instead promulgated lies about the integrity of the trial and related investigation. On October 28th, 2024, notwithstanding that a jury of Mr. Peterson's peers found him guilty of shooting Miss Pete in December 2022. Defendant Cooper reposted a video of herself where she discussed the trial on her ex account. In the video, Defendant Cooper asks Miss Pete, "Can you even prove that you was shot?" On October 5th, 2024, Defendant Cooper posted on her ex account, "Magro, stop talking about the case. We moved on. Every time they lie, I'mma make y'all cry." The they defendant Cooper referred to is Miss Pete and her supporters. And then there's the screenshot and it says, "Who shot Megan?" And then the lawsuit says, "Defendant Cooper also commented in a follow-up post, and if y'all believe her, why is who shot Megan a question that's being posed, y'all so timid, speak up." Defendant Cooper also reposted an online petition on September 15th, 2024 that encouraged her followers to sign the petition to free Mr. Peterson from prison, citing ex exculpatory evidence when there is none. And Magro tweeted, "Over 100K people have signed a petition requesting that Tory Lanes be released from prison, citing exculpatory evidence. Sign here and then there's the link." On September 2nd, 2024, Defendant Cooper reposted a video in which a talk show host stated, "Megan allegedly still has a severe drinking problem. From what I've heard, I think she needs to spend more time in a relationship with herself and her therapist and maybe aa defendant Cooper's obsessive post about Miss Peak continued in August 2024 when she posted a tweet asking if Megan Dallion was caught trying to deceive the courts again. Defendant continued to spew false statements and narratives about Miss Pete. On July 30th, 2024, Defendant Cooper posted a podcast style video on X in which she states, "What is Megan's mental status? Does she have a guardian or not? Has she been listed as a capable person? Has she ever been deemed like legally like anything of the nature, anything of the sort?" On December 24th, 2023, Defendant Cooper posted the following statement on X. Megan wants to know what she has to do to stop being posted on certain outlets and then says she's going to Cardi B. Y'all hoes. My suggestion would be to just get over it or go away. Cardi won her case because Tasha K handed it to her. Other than that, you're going to get posted. Oh well. On June 22nd, 2023, ex-user account Holiday Holiday K shared audio of Defendant Cooper calling Miss Pete a lion as hoe and claiming that Miss Pete ruined Tory Lane's life. Defendant Cooper liked the post. Even Defendant Cooper's former friend, King Noir, exposed her for working alongside Mr. Peterson to sme to smear Miss Pete's reputation. King Noir also noted that defendant Cooper has a disdain for Megan and that she talks to Tori's daddy in an effort to leak information to the press that comes from Mr. Peterson himself. Another example of Defendant Cooper's reckless disregard for the truth is a May 2022 I'm sorry May 2022 post on her ex account when Defendant Cooper posted an image of Los Angeles Police Department report from Mr. Peterson's arrest, stating that the first doctor to see Miss Pete confirmed laceration due to stepping on glass, not a firearm wound. However, the information from the police report was recorded before bullet fragments were discovered in Miss Pete's feet during surgery, which completely debunked defendants post. Nonetheless, bloggers and podcasters liked DJ like DJ academics presented defendants post alongside conspiracy theories that Miss Pete was never shot. Rather than retract the false story, defendant doubled down to NBC News, stating, "Everything is not going to be something that was intended to be a factual statement. It might have a comedic effect." Defendant Cooper also doubled down on her falsehoods throughout the trial. Indeed, she traveled from Houston, Texas to Los Angeles to attend the court proceedings and live streamed her skewed take on the criminal proceedings daily to her online followers. Defendant Cooper consistently denigrated witnesses called by the state, including in the below examples of defendants posts. Um, offering a real quick opinion before I keep reading. Some of this is you got to just take the punches if you're a celebrity. Some of it. I'm not saying all of it, but some of it. Because if that is the case, no publication would exist unless they only gave favorable things. But it's the blatant statements of things that again defamation is proven if you if you are not telling the truth. If you're telling the truth, the person can't claim defamation. Um, but I'll keep going. But I will say just as somebody that offers their commentary and opinion. I'm real careful about these. So, [clears throat] okay. So, then Grahams, her tweet read, "Megan paid Kelsey rent for a year. If that would have been Tori, that would have been a bribe." And then she tweeted, "Guess what? Sean Holly wasn't representing Tori when Kelsey says Tori said my lawyer said to word things a particular way just like he was never on probation. These hoes very slow." Then Magro said talking about credible when we all sitting in here. Shut the f up. Then it says, "The audio pulled on the heartstrings of all the people that aren't willing to say, "But wait, what about gunshot residue on your hands in the witness statements or the fact that she said nothing like this and weren't going to speak until she was told it could be her?" Another tweet says, "All this case case taught anyone." Oh, we already read that that they'll get 20 years if they believe noncredible witnesses. Then it says, "Defendant intended these tweets to intimidate Miss Pete and any witnesses that called on behalf of the state." For example, on her December 13th, 2022 Instagram live session, defendant Cooper called Miss Pete an angry black woman because she supposedly believed Miss Pete had an attitude during her testimony. Miss Pete had no attitude. Instead, Miss Pete's testimony was extraordinarily difficult for her as she had to recount the traumatizing events that led to the incident. Defendant Cooper continued to spew false statements about Miss Pete and other witnesses at trial, including the below examples of defendants post. So Nicki Minaj posted, "God bless this woman. In all seriousness, this woman was tormented on the internet relentlessly while pregnant with her first child by her best friend who could have easily told people to stop. The girl's girl lion lipo best friend man effort. This is sad." Um, Magro said, "Child, f Kelsey, too." But Megan was dead ass wrong. Then Magro uh said someone trolled Kelsey and spoke ill of her deceased father, and that's disgusting. So, she took it upon herself to find out it was school they went to and call them. Oh, to find out what school they went to and call them. This the same one that claimed she did Megan's homework, right, child? Shouldn't she have reported her damn self? Defendants disparaging remarks had and continue to have a negative effect on plaintiff's mental and emotional state. Defendant's conduct caused and continues to cause significant personal and economic harm to Miss Pete. It injured her reputation and standing as a professional musician. It caused severe mental and emotional harm. It caused economic harm in plaintiffs efforts to remove the various bots defendant enlists to attach plaintiff supporters or they probably meant to attack plaintiff supporters in some plaintiff's damages exceed $75,000 exclusive of interest and cost in an amount to be determined at trial. Okay, so here are the counts. And hey everybody coming in. I'm sorry I didn't get to all y'all yet. Um, so count one, promotion of an altered sexual depiction. And we went over the description of that. So I'm going to go down just a little bit cuz it already we already talked about how she promoted it or how they're accusing her of promoting it. Okay. And then basically it says as defendant Cooper knew or reasonably should have known that the deep fake video was an altered sexual depiction. As a result of defendant Cooper's misconduct, Miss Pete has been injured in an amount to be proven, including reputational damages and emotional injuries. Okay, we're going to go down a little bit. Count two, cyberstalking injunctive relief. Miss Pete is the victim of cyberstalking by defendant Cooper because Cooper engaged in a course of conduct to communicate or to cause to be communicated images by and through the use of electronic mail directed at Miss Pete which caused substantial emotional distress to Miss Pete and serve no legitimate purpose. Cyberstalking is a form of wrongful conduct, not speech, which is prohibited by and then the Florida statute. So now that was important to me because now it's not about just I don't like her opinion of me. It's more like this is this conduct is not allowed without punishment. So that's what that sounds like to me. It says cyberstalking is a form of harassment that can be enjoined in that Florida statute as well as under common law which provides for the entry of injunctions to prevent harassment. Justice, reason, and common sense justify the entry of an injunction for cyber cyberstalking. Miss Pete has experienced in this case. Miss Pete has a clear legal right to the entry of an injunction. Miss Pete will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Miss Pete has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her claim. The threatened injury to Miss Pete as a result of defendant Cooper's continued misconduct outweighs any possible harm that will result from the entry of an injunction. [clears throat] The considerations of the public interest support the entry of an injunction. Miss Pete has not made any previous attempt to obtain an injunction for protection against defendant Cooper in this or any other court. Wherefore, Miss Pete seeks a temporary and permanent injunction restraining Defendant Cooper from committing any acts of cyberstalking against her and providing any terms the court deems necessary for the protection of Miss Pete, including any injunctions or directives to law enforcement agencies. Okay, so that's that's what I'm going to be looking for on the jury verdict about the cyberstalking. So, that's count two. So, remind me cuz I'm not writing this down. [laughter] All right. Count three, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Okay. So, basically, she's saying that uh Magro acted intentionally and recklessly inflicting emotional distress um upon her with a deep fake videos. And I'm going down. Defendant Cooper's conduct was outrageous as to go beyond all bounds of decency and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. The the revilement defendant Cooper inflicted upon Miss Pete is explicit and egregious. Defendant Cooper's conduct has caused and will continue to cause severe emotional distress, shame, humiliation, and embarrassment to Miss Pete. Okay. So, she's just I think that's where the wording with her lawyers are coming in is like it's well beyond she just doesn't like me. That's what I'm gaining from this so far. Count for invasion of privacy, false light. Okay. We got the deep fake video mentioned again and shame and humiliation mentioned again. Okay. And then she demands a jury trial which she had and prayer for relief. It says, "Wherefore, Miss Pete respectfully requests that this court enter judgment in an amount for all damages owed to Miss Pete, including but not limited to compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, attorney's fees, cost, interest, and all other damages as are just and proper as well as declaratory judgment to remedy defendants's unlawful behavior." So probably like for instance the injunction. [clears throat] Okay. So now we can go to there was an order filed before the verdict came out that I want to show y'all because it I think you know it plays a role and then we're getting to the verdict. So but I wanted to give background on what did um Megan actually file so then we can see what she won or didn't win and things like that. So now we're on to the judge's order. It says, "This cause came before the court defendant Magro Elizabeth Cooper's motion for directed verdict on plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. As stated in open court, it is ordered in a judge that defendants motion for directed verdict on plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is denied, done, and ordered in Miami, Florida, this 26th day of November, 2025." Okay, so now we can get to the verdict. Here we go. There's and there's multiple counts, so we have to see each one. All right. So, verdict form. In answering the following questions and filling out this verdict form, you are to follow my final instructions and any instructions provided in this verdict form. Your answer to each of the following must be unanimous. We, the jury, unanimously answer the questions submitted to us as follows. Miss Pete's claims. All right. So, count one, defamation per se. Question one, do you find, and obviously this is the questions to the jury, do you find by a 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 one, Miss Pete was a noncredible witness? Two, I could go down the list of all the different that was not true. And three, ask, "Was Megan D Stallion caught trying to deceive the courts again?" Okay, so the jury they marked yes. They said they do find by preponderance of the evidence that Magro is liable to Megan for defamation per se. So the defamation stuck. Then it says, "If your answer to question one is yes, continue to question two. If the answer is no, proceed to count two, intentional infliction of emotional distress." So, we're still on question two of count one, Miss Queen Liz, I don't understand your um Okay, you're okay. You said I got to what you wanted to know. Okay. Okay. So, question two and count one. Do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper's defamatory statements caused Miss Pete actual damages? They said yes. Regardless of your answer to question two, got to go to question three. Question three to the jury. 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? That was a great question. I feel like that had to be Magro's attorneys that wanted question three in there because that makes a big difference. Okay. Could it have been like distasteful or not in favor of Megan? But was she still more neutral than outright um malicious, I guess? So, the jury says no. They do not find Magro's um let me see commentary to be neutral and disinterested. it, which means they do more see it as advocating for Tory Lanes and his father. So then we go to question four, still on count one. 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? And they answered yes. So, they do feel like she regularly did this. Okay. And I do want to say that I definitely believe the one about the felony and the noncredible witness was Megan's attorneys that put that question in there because they made sure to point out that if you're trying to say Megan committed perjury, you're saying she would have committed a felony and do you believe that Magro un you know understood that or you know that that's what she was doing or whatever. So that was a very important question. All right. Then question five for still count one. During the time period when the statements were made, do you find by a prepoundonderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper impartially disseminated information rather than acting primarily to promote her own business, products, or services? Okay. Impartially. Okay. So, no, they don't think she was impartial when she put the information out, which to me means it felt more personal in the jury's opinion. All right. And that's just me. That's my opinion. Okay. Question six of count one. 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? Unanimously, the jury actually said yes, that they do believe that she would just put information out there in in general. Question seven, during the time period when the statements were made, do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper functioned in a similar manner to traditional news media such as newspapers, magazines, television, radio, or their online equivalents? The jury said yes. So overall, the jury still sees Magro as someone that does put out traditional media in her own, you know, like um I watched I was watching Arman Wiggins how they he said they call us the new media, but they do feel like she just regularly put out news. That's good. It's good to know where the jury's mind is at. Question eight. Considering your answers to questions three through seven together, do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper should be treated as a media defendant with regard to the statements made in this case? And they said yes. Okay. So they they are that means you get media protections and punishments then. So that's really interesting. They do consider her to be treated as a media defendant. That's that's actually good news for Magro on that one. Um, all right. Number one going to count two. Question nine. Do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct toward Miss Pete? The jury answered yes. Question 10. Do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Pete suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Miss Cooper's extreme and outrageous conduct? The jury said 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? The jury said yes. Then it says, so now we're on 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 answered yes. And and I'm a layman. I'm a lay person, so I'm not it's not like I'm just saying something wild here, but um you know, criminal has to be without doubt. Civil has to be preponderance of the evidence. So you can lean more one way or the other. You don't have to have any, you know, you don't ha, you can still maintain some doubt, but you can say, you know, preponderance of the evidence, I'm leaning this way. So, with civil, that's enough. Um, all right. So, then it says, if your answer is yes, in what amount? So, what amount should her compensatory damages be? They put I think that's supposed to say $15,000 and 0. The way they wrote it was kind of weird if that's what that says, but I think it's $15,000. Question 13. Do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Peach should be awarded compensatory damages against Miss Cooper for intentional infliction of emotional distress? They said yes, in amount of $8,000. Okay, so we have defamation, we have emotional distress, and intentional infliction. Then we're on to question 14. Do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss P should be awarded compensatory damages against Miss Cooper for promotion of an altered sexual depiction? The jury said yes and the amount is $50,000. Question 15. If you found for Miss Pete on the defamation claim at question one, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted against Miss Cooper on Miss Pete's defamation claim? They answered yes. And that's either I'mma say it's a 1,000. It's got a little hook on there, but I think that's $1,000. [laughter] Question 16. If you found for Miss Pete on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim distress claim at questions nine and 10, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted against Miss Cooper on Miss P's intentional infliction of emotional distress? They said yes. And I'm going to say again, I think that's one a number one. So $1,000 for that. And then the jury for person signed and it's dated today, December 1st, 2025. So, all right, there we go. And the only reason I Okay, so this is why I put mostly because I was when I pulled it, I skimmed it. And when I didn't see every last box checked as um a yes in Megan's favor, um I was like, "Okay, well that's a mostly." In my opinion, that's a mostly. But it is good to see in the way that a blogger is considered to be putting out their things as a traditional media. And I here's my thoughts. Overall, Magro probably would have been fine if she hadn't have promoted that um the sexual depiction, the altered sexual depiction. She probably would have made out really really well. But I guess, you know, it got malicious and I and that I don't know if that's the only thing that happened with Tasha K because I didn't get to look over those. But I think a big part played into these sexual depiction things that people keep doing and that hurts them a lot and it might then make a jury more sympathetic to anything else the person's claiming. That's my opinion. Um cuz other than that, every every outlet really does antagonize whoever they don't like a little bit. like they kind they're not going to have a favorable opinion of them. And they're also going to be like, I kind of believe other people. I don't believe them. What are you going to make me do about it? But when you start stating things that can be easily proven wrong, that's what gets you in trouble. If it just stays your opinion, that's one thing. But if you are stating things that are supposed to be factualbased and you're not being truthful about that, there's there's where the problem goes. But um all right, so that's it. So, um, now for me, since I'm just reading the court documents, that's in the interest of Megan, if she wants to pursue who created that and then, you know, go from there. But I think Magra was her big thorn in her side. I don't even know if she's going to try to find any of that. And it would take a lot. That's some forensic type stuff now. Some cyber forensics type stuff. So, I don't know. But, um, this is just from the court documents. That is what it was. That's what she her complaint was. And this is what the jury came back with. Um, so let's see if I can do quick quick live math. Let's go. Let's see if I can add this up real fast. [laughter] I think the money started. Let make sure I didn't miss anything. Okay, so I think we're starting here with the 15,000. So we have 15,000. So, 23,000 se uh 73,000 74,000 75,000. So, if I if my math is right and I'm reading the handwriting correctly, a total of $75,000 is being awarded probably plus attorney fees and all that. But, okay, that's it. It is a school night for me. Um, so I hope y'all enjoyed that and I thank y'all for stopping by is always appreciated and I will talk to you soon. All right, bye.