Kathy's InDieZoNe

Here we provide an update in proffering pure opinions, comments, and speculation per the First Amendment quoting and citing to it while discussing a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) proceeding that could change the legal standard for those who wish to set aside plea deals revisiting the Supreme Court's 2019 precedent in Garza v. Idaho.

LINK to Playlist, Hunter v US:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y-ohL9Vq7E&list=PLbLUtgSDXdFMfRIZfgBw6syRpeqd5V8vU

Everything presented here represents the pure opinions and comments of the host for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching and/or research per Amend. I, U.S. Const. and does not nor is it intended to provide legal advice. First AmendmentCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act,which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

#SCOTUS

#HuntervUS

#BryanKohberger

#FreeSpeech

#DueProcess

Here, we provided opinions, commentary and speculation regarding the appeal styled as Richard Allen v. State of Indiana discussing the status of the same. This is the high profile "Delphi case" where Appellant/Allen is seeking a new trial or in the alternative remanding to the trial court for a "Franks" hearing. According to the docket , two new items have been filed subsequent to the appellate order granting Mr. Allen's motion for oral argument.

Everything here represents the pure opinion, commentary, speculation and rhetorical questions per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act,which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright.

LINK to appellate docket in Allen v. Indiana:

https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase/#/vw/CaseSummary/eyJ2Ijp7IkNhc2VUb2tlbiI6Im1tSVQyMlNmWXVSWGxLVTBDZjFYck5FWGFLeVNpSm5iMmhES0YtYVVUNUkxIn19

#RichardAllen

#AllenvIndiana

#DelphiCase

#DelphiAppeal

#FreeSpeech

Here we provide an update and pure opinions and comments concerning Mr. Kohberger's decision of June 30, 2025 to enter into a plea deal with the state of Idaho and forgo his constitutional right to a jury trial. That decision came to the surprise of many. The rhetorical question is asked based on speculation, opinion and commentary only if two events occurring the afternoon of June 25, 2025 played a role in Mr. Kohberger's decision to plead guilty. Everything presented here represents the pure opinions and comments of the host for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching and/or research per Amend. I, U.S. Const. and does not nor is it intended to provide legal advice. First AmendmentCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act,which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠#IdahovKohberger

#Idaho4

#FreeSpeech

#BryanKohberger

Here we discuss for educational purposes and based on pure opinions, commentary and speculations pursuant to Amend. I, US Const. a federal civil rights lawsuit for punitive and compensatory damages brought by former attorney Alex Murdaugh against former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983, a federal statute, asserting Hill's allegedly depriving Murdaugh of his right to a fair, impartial jury. This case arises out of the high profile case of South Carolina v. Murdaugh, where the Supreme Court of S.C. recently threw out Mr. Murdaugh's two life terms following a jury trial for the un-alivings of his wife and son.

1. Page 1 of the Complaint appears on the community page of our YT channel here: https://www.youtube.com/@KathysIndieZoNe/posts

2. Our prior content RE: the South Carolina Supreme Court's reversal of Mr. Murdaugh's convictions addressed in the civil rights lawsuit--) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-Zim3lCJW0&t=72s

Everything presented here represents the pure opinions and comments of the host for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching and/or research per Amend. I, U.S. Const. and does not nor is it intended to provide legal advice. It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act,which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright.

Here we provide pure opinions, comments, and speculation concerning a federal defamation lawsuit filed by the father and grandfather of teenager Kiely Rodni who disappeared and was tragically found un-alived in 2022 against on-line content creator/musician Ryan Upchurch resulting in a verdict following jury trial in the amount of $17.5 million.

Everything here represents the pure opinion, commentary, speculation and rhetorical questions per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states at Amendment I:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright.

#KielyRodni

#DanielRodni

#DavidRobinson

#Defamation

#RyanUpchurch

#FreeSpeech

Here, we provided opinions, commentary and speculation regarding the court case filed in a Florida State court on March 31, 2026 of the celebrity/world famous professional golfer Tiger Woods on Jupiter Island, Martin County, Florida. This follows a prior May 2017 DUI arrest in Palm Beach County, Florida. Here we discuss two recent developments in the court case.

Everything here represents the pure opinion, commentary, speculation and rhetorical questions per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act,which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright.

#TigerWoods

#FloridavWoods

#DUI

#FirstAmendment

#FreeSpeech

#PetitionGovtGrievances

Here we provide pure opinions, comments, and speculation concerning events occurring in the Idaho4 Defamation case, a 2 count federal lawsuit alleging defamation of character by a University of Idaho (Moscow) History Professor against an on-line personality/content creator and psychic in the case styled as Rebecca Scofield v. Ashley Guillard. Here we provide pure opinions, comments and speculation concerning the current status of the defense's appeal of the $10 million judgment entered against her to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and a document filed May 18, 2026 regarding the appellate transcript by Plaintiff. LINK to our prior podcast on Federal Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction in the Idaho4 Defamation Case:   • How a State #Idaho4 Defamation Case Blew U...  Everything here represents the pure opinion, commentary, speculation and rhetorical questions per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states at Amendment I:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright.

#Idaho4

#RebeccaScofield

#AshleyGuillard

#Defamation

Here we provide an update and pure opinions and comments concerning today's (May 18, 2026) hearing on a public records lawsuit before Judge Megan E. Marshall - EWU Media LLC vs. City of Moscow/Moscow Police Department.

Link to our EWU v. Moscow Playlist RE the case:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbLUtgSDXdFPt8nqgkLpSBcZFxtS2cYep

Everything presented here represents the pure opinions and comments of the host for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching and/or research per Amend. I, U.S. Const. and does not nor is it intended to provide legal advice. First AmendmentCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act,which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

#EWUMedia

#Idaho4

#BryanKohberger

#FreeSpeech

#FreePress

Here we provide pure opinions, comments, and speculation concerning the current status of the high-profile federal civil lawsuit styled as Goncalves et al. vs. Washington State University. The same has been proceeding since late January 2026 before U.S. District Court Judge Evanson following Judge Evanson's April 14, 2026 court order regarding the filing of the Joint Status Report by the parties. The Plaintiffs are the personal representatives of the estates of four students who were catastrophically lost on November 13, 2022 at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho.

Everything here represents the pure opinion, commentary, speculation and rhetorical questions per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. All parties who are charged with crimes are considered innocent under the eyes of the law until or unless they (1) are adjudicated guilty in a court of law or (2) agree to plead guilty.

#Idaho4

#WashingtonStateUniversity

#TitleIX

In a unanimous ruling by the justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court, two convictions returned against the defendant in the matter styled as South Carolina v. Richard "Alex" Murdaugh for the unalivings of his wife, Maggie, and their 22-year-old son, Paul, on June 7, 2021 have been reversed.

Link to YT channel addressed in this presentation: https://www.youtube.com/@KathysIndieZoNe/posts

Here we discuss for educational purposes and based on pure opinions, commentary and speculations pursuant to Amend. I, US Const. why the S.C. high court reversed these two convictions and remanded for a new trial based on due process of law. Everything presented here represents the pure opinions and comments of the host for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching and/or research per Amend. I, U.S. Const. and does not nor is it intended to provide legal advice. It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act,which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright.