Lawyer & legal scholar who has worked on both sides - prosecution and BigLaw defense. Commentary not advice. Still covering Rust, Busfield, and Epstein in NM.
Joined March 2023
- Tweets4.4K
- Following109
- Followers913
- Likes5K
Timothy Busfield Criminal Case Timeline:
1/9/26 - Arrest
1/20/26 - Pretrial Detention Hearing
1/21/26 - GJ Target and Bort Jones Notice. GJ is 2/5.
2/3/26 - Deadline for Bort Jones Letter re exculpatory evidence and witnesses. Busfield's counsel declines.
2/4/26 - Busfield notifies ADA he will testify before GJ.
2/5/26 - GJ held. Busfield shows up to testify. He has nine witnesses in tow along with exhibits including two Warner Brothers invests. Victims, their doctors, therapists, weren't contacted for studio backed invests.
In NM, the procedurally appropriate way to get the exculpatory evidence and witnesses into a GJ is via the Bort Jones process. Defense counsel pulled a sneaky move, trying to get questionable material and witnesses in through Busfield's testimony. Had they gone the Bort Jones route the prosecutor (via motion) and the judge likely wouldn't have OKed the proposed material.
Yeah that was BS. I try to give credit where it's due even if I'm not a fan. Team Doughy all the way. This one is my fav.
I only made it to the hour 39 mark. It was painful. Gotta take a break. Notes Part 2:
On statutory definitions: "That's just when they define things blah blah blah." Tip: Statute specific definitions matter. A lot.
"Whoever willfully, either directly or indirectly...so already we're off to a weird start." No Em. This isn't a weird start. It's common statutory language.
SHE IGNORES STARTING ON OR ABOUT language in the indictments. Treats 13B charges like all he was doing was asking them to "to tell the truth."
She hasn't read the entire statute yet or the definitions but declares: "It feels like a real reach to call that a crime." It sure does if you ignore the definitions and case law!
Mid-reading of 13B she brings up if Karen was found guilty TB's ego would have been bruised. What? I honestly have no idea what she's talking about. It has nothing to do with interpreting 13B.
Oh no Expert has to save her. She's touching hair nonstop. Defense mechanism. He brings up the lacrosse game. Emily says: "Can I ask you one question about that one? Would that story hit differently to you if there wasn't a video? And then why is there a video?" This is irrelevant to the elements required under 13B.
She says: "He could also flip that just as easily and say he truly believed what he was saying. That they were dangerous people and he filmed for his own protection." UMMMMM? WHAT?!
She is honestly calling people stupid, dumbasses, and idiots while confusing Aidan's defamation talking points with his criminal case.
I gave up around the hour 40 mark. I tried.
From what I've heard, Expert guy graduated from law school. His wheels are spinning here as Emily gives her interpretation of 13B. I'm uncomfortable.
FYI: I have my own chart that I've been working on breaking down the elements of Aidan's charges etc. I'll share closer to trial.
Sharing my comment here because people might have Melissa blocked or vice versa.
Emily See stated numerous factual and legal misrepresentations the other night during her live with the Expert guy. I'm still watching. See below for a condensed list of the first ten minutes of errors.
Your clips popped up in my feed and this one was intriguing! I started watching around when this clip ends. We might not agree on everything but we agree on this. Holy cow. I'm ten minutes in and she's called people stupid, dumbasses, and idiots at least seven times. She then proceeded to:
Forgot the year of AK's indictment. "What is this...2024?"
Mistakes Julie Albert for Julie Nagel in the 13B counts. The indictment clearly says Nagel. See attached.
Misstates the total # of counts. Says there's 10 and omits the two 2025 13B D & E Chris and Colin Albert counts that were recently joined.
Says Rachel Rollins got the same subpoena she got. WRONG. Diller's name was clearly on Rollin's subpoena. That's the wrongful death suit. Does she think Jen McCabe is a party in the wrongful death suit?
Fails to comprehend the legal significance of impoundment orders.
Thinks proof of changing testimony is required. Read the case law and model jury instructions. It's not.
Her picketing analogy doesn't even reference a picketing event.
She's apparently an expert on prison structure and rehabilitation. To be fair, Marble Mouth Expert tries to pipe up. She says: "Is there any part of prison that's structured to rehabilitate?" "It's been four years since he did this. Has he picketed anyone else? Is he rehabilitated?" UMMMM? As someone who has visited prisons and met with individuals serving life sentences to discuss prison reform, she's clueless. That's a post for another time.
I haven't even gotten to her breakdown of 13B. Part 2 coming in another post!
Your clips popped up in my feed and this one was intriguing! I started watching around when this clip ends. We might not agree on everything but we agree on this. Holy cow. I'm ten minutes in and she's called people stupid, dumbasses, and idiots at least seven times. She then proceeded to:
Forgot the year of AK's indictment. "What is this...2024?"
Mistakes Julie Albert for Julie Nagel in the 13B counts. The indictment clearly says Nagel. See attached.
Misstates the total # of counts. Says there's 10 and omits the two 2025 13B D & E Chris and Colin Albert counts that were recently joined.
Says Rachel Rollins got the same subpoena she got. WRONG. Diller's name was clearly on Rollin's subpoena. That's the wrongful death suit. Does she think Jen McCabe is a party in the wrongful death suit?
Fails to comprehend the legal significance of impoundment orders.
Thinks proof of changing testimony is required. Read the case law and model jury instructions. It's not.
Her picketing analogy doesn't even reference a picketing event.
She's apparently an expert on prison structure and rehabilitation. To be fair, Marble Mouth Expert tries to pipe up. She says: "Is there any part of prison that's structured to rehabilitate?" "It's been four years since he did this. Has he picketed anyone else? Is he rehabilitated?" UMMMM? As someone who has visited prisons and met with individuals serving life sentences to discuss prison reform, she's clueless. That's a post for another time.
I haven't even gotten to her breakdown of 13B. Part 2 coming in another post!
The timing is also important. The destruction of evidence claims re: Rust are continuing to the next stage because that occurred prior to filing formal charges.
I'm not sure what he's said about her civil cases. 1983 cases are incredibly complex. LEO defendants named in their individual capacities are granted immunity 99% of the time. Even when there's bad faith. The detective in Alec Baldwin's case committed perjury at his grand jury and at trial. She also willfully suppressed evidence. Fed judge granted immunity and MTD.
She can't even bother doing a Google search to fact check. She's citing a 9/15/25 letter that Martin withdrew on 9/24/25. That same day Martin wrote a second letter saying there was no investigation of Mattei or his client. See Mattei's statement about it.
For those interested in learning more about federal 1983 cases I highly recommend this article written by a former trial and appellate judge. While much of the focus is New Mexico specific, the sections discussing federal 1983 law are really helpful and relatively easy to understand. Scroll to page 7 (368).
digitalrepository.unm.edu/nm…
Good point. It's not like he's just some random troll saying this stuff. The dude is a convicted felon and career criminal who has been in and out of prison over the last 25+ years.
