THE SHAWN LEE REPORT · EPISODE 8 Fake Court Orders. Now a Federal Case. Hosts: Meg (Stand With Meg) and Shawn Lee (criminal attorney) This transcript has been edited for reading. Timestamps, pauses, false starts, filler words, and off-camera production talk have been removed. [Break] marks a spot where recording stopped or production talk was cut, and [unclear] marks words the audio doesn’t support. Speaker labels were added by an editor. General legal education, not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by this content. Shawn’s fraud framework is his theory, his professional reading of federal statutes. Opinions and allegations are presented as spoken; including them here does not establish a fact or a legal finding. Source note from the supplied editor: Edited from the transcript of the full recording and checked line by line against the published video’s captions. The published video opens with a short teaser of a line that comes later in the episode; it is left out here. A few on-camera lines that were cut from the published video are included. Names and dates were checked against the indictment and court records shown on camera. MEG: Welcome to the Stand With Meg Show. I’m your host, Meg, and today we’re here with Shawn Lee. Welcome to the show, Shawn. This is our Episode 8. We were just talking about this, and we’re super excited. You know what Shawn did when he walked in today? Tell our viewers what you said to me about your bow tie. SHAWN: Oh, yeah. Bow ties. Every time I’m really going to pull something off, I wear a bow tie. It makes me look like a real lawyer. MEG: He didn’t really say that. SHAWN: Actually, I did. And I tell the juries that. MEG: Maybe I’ll say some other time what he said, because he can’t say it himself. But we’re excited about today. And once again, I have no idea what he brings in. He doesn’t tell me. He brings in his stuff, so what you see on my expression is exactly that: it’s all fresh and new. Nothing’s rehearsed here at all. Whatever he brings in, he teaches me, so I’m learning right along with you. SHAWN: Yes, yes. So first, I want to thank you for being on the show, for hosting this, and for calling attention to this dire, dire need. You’re, in a way, sort of a civil rights advocate. MEG: Okay. SHAWN: Absolutely. So let’s start by taking some stock. Let’s look at… what’s the girl who does Wheel of Fortune? Is that a healthy fraud file? Is that a fat, healthy fraud file? What’s her name, on Wheel of Fortune? MEG: I don’t know who you’re talking about. SHAWN: The girl, you know, who does the… MEG: Vanna White. SHAWN: Thank you. You said it. All right, you’re Vanna White. Look how fat this thing is. We started with nothing, and now we’ve filled this up with fraud research. MEG: It’s so heavy. SHAWN: Yeah. Feel that. MEG: Oh, gosh. Yeah, it is. SHAWN: All right, here’s what I need you to do. I need you to hold it with one arm, just like that. MEG: With my left hand? My weak hand? SHAWN: One hand. One hand, just like that. Now hold on to that. That’s called a stress position. MEG: That’s like a good workout. SHAWN: Welcome to family court. Okay, set that down. Let’s go back to something here. I drew a little chart here, Meg. Here’s a little chart that we drew. Over here, we have all your co-parent stuff, right? All the things you fight about: who’s going to get money, who’s going to get assets, who’s going to get custody, and “I don’t like what you said,” and “You don’t like what they’re doing,” blah, blah, blah. Here’s our little box for that. And you’re not doing well in these areas if you’re in family court. But if you’re co-parents, you definitely want to cooperate on the fraud box. Now, [unclear] people really understand that, okay? Because a lot of people can’t even speak to their exes. If you have this contentious relationship with your ex, that’s okay. That’s why you have custody issues, right? But think about it this way. If you’re due a million dollars, and all you have to do is get into a room with your ex for an hour with an FBI agent, and that FBI agent and a United States attorney may go out and get you $1 million in restitution for a wire fraud charge, that’s what we mean. Would you get along enough to do that? Could you get along for as long as it takes for you to get together in a room and mutually agree you both got screwed? MEG: Okay. I agree. SHAWN: It wasn’t one of you who got screwed. It’s that both of you got screwed. And here’s the math on this, Meg. There are so many family court cases in America that even if 1% of 1% came forward, people who are professionals, who know what a raw deal looks like, if they came forward and filed fraud complaints, the whole pyramid would collapse. [Break] SHAWN: So let’s go back over some of our types of fraud involving judges. We have Kids for Cash. The most well known is a judge who has a direct financial relationship with a company that the judge enters orders in favor of. That’s the Kids for Cash case. Less well known are the political conflicts: judges who are just politicians in robes. Hannah Dugan, for example. There’s no evidence that she took money in order to do what she did. She just didn’t believe in the federal government’s immigration program, and took an act in furtherance of disrupting that program. And then there’s personal. You know, we went over Leslie Ann Celebrezze. She had a personal relationship with a family lawyer. She steered a case his way and covered it up. So there are political, financial, and personal conflicts that can catch a judge with a felony in relation to their orders. So let’s embark on Operation Judge Hunt. [Break] SHAWN: Okay. So, Meg, are you ready to start Operation Judge Hunt? MEG: Yep. Let’s go. SHAWN: All right. We’re going to hunt fraud involving judges, and I’m going to walk you down a trail. At the end of that trail, you’re going to start to figure out what it is that we’re doing. So let’s start with a case that came up this week. MEG: This week! I like the new stuff. SHAWN: September 10, 2026. Take a look at that. MEG: (reading) “Former Beth…” What’s that word? “Bethalto”? Is it just “Bethalto”? “Former Bethalto attorney accused of stealing over $400,000 from minor clients.” SHAWN: And who published that? MEG: The DOJ, the Department of Justice. SHAWN: Okay. And what day did they publish that? MEG: September 10, 2026. Last Thursday. SHAWN: All right. So a week ago… actually, not even a week ago. Two days ago that got published. MEG: And I already did a reel about this. SHAWN: Yes. MEG: Because you blew me away when I saw it. I caught that: that’s a guardian ad litem. So explain this to us more, because of course I couldn’t explain it like you. SHAWN: Let’s go over some key dates here. Let’s go over some real key dates, because I’m going to walk you through something in real time. This got published two days ago, right? Which means it’s hot. We’re probably the first ones in the nation to report on this and to connect these dots. All right, let’s start. MEG: So you’re going to go into detail about this case. SHAWN: I’m going to go into detail. All right. So these are allegations being made by the Department of Justice against David K. Elliott. He is an attorney, but he’s a guardian ad litem, from Illinois. Yeah, these are allegations. More importantly: Southern District of Illinois, just across the river from St. Louis. East St. Louis. Very close to where Matt Grant filed his RICO case. MEG: Yes. If you guys don’t know Matt Grant, he is also an attorney, and now he’s running for Congress. SHAWN: Primary didn’t go so great. MEG: Oh, really? I didn’t get to look into that. But he’s actually the attorney who filed in federal court and still got dismissed, even though he’s an attorney, too. He should know his stuff. But okay. SHAWN: Now I want to show you something on this press release here. “Thereafter, from May 2019 to October 2022,” he fraudulently, allegedly fraudulently, withdrew $400,000. You see that? MEG: (reading) “Thereafter, from May 2019 to October 2022, Elliott fraudulently withdrew more than $400,000 from a minor’s bank account and used those funds for his own benefit.” SHAWN: All right. What years were those? MEG: 2019 to 2022. SHAWN: Okay. Here is a report from the Supreme Court of Illinois. Tell me when this man lost his license. MEG: Ooh. He lost it in 2020. But wait: 2019 to 2022. So he lost his license, and he was still being a GAL? Wow. Is that in the report from the DOJ, or did you find this yourself? SHAWN: I found this myself. It’s not even in here. MEG: So they didn’t… ‘cause I don’t think I read that. SHAWN: I told you. We’re probably the first ones looking into this. MEG: Oh my gosh. Look at that. So, effective 3/13/2020, he’s got his license suspended for a period of time, until further notice or order of the court. (reading) “…engaged in misconduct, and the misconduct warrants interruption of the lawyer’s authority to practice law during the suspension period.” He is not allowed to practice law during the suspension period. SHAWN: Now look at this article I found in the newspaper. MEG: (reading) “Weapons and drug charges filed against six…” SHAWN: Right here. Okay, a couple more. It printed weird off the internet. Right there. MEG: Thank you. (reading) “David Elliott, 36, of…” that county I can’t pronounce, “…was charged with unlawful possession of controlled substances and driving while license revoked, a Class 4 felony. The case was presented by the Pontoon Beach Police Department. On October 12, Elliott allegedly was found to be in possession of less than 5 grams of cocaine and was driving on Illinois 111 with a suspended license due to statutory summary suspensions in 2019. He has a 2010 Jackson County conviction for driving while license revoked. Bail was set at $15,000.” Wow, he’s a piece of work. SHAWN: Okay. Look at the date. MEG: I was going to say, wait a second. He’s 36 years old here, and this date is 2021. SHAWN: Is that before or after his suspension? MEG: That was after his suspension. SHAWN: Yeah. So after his license is suspended, he gets caught driving while revoked with less than 15 grams of cocaine. MEG: So wait a second. His license is suspended? You mean his attorney license was suspended? SHAWN: And his driver’s license. MEG: And apparently his driver’s license was suspended, but he kept going. No driver’s license, and he kept practicing law. No license to practice law. SHAWN: And cocaine in the car. MEG: And cocaine in the car. Okay. And stealing money. SHAWN: Oh, hold on. We’re getting there. We’re getting there. Okay. It’s the people who run our family courts. Here’s his 2012 case for his license suspension. MEG: Okay, man. So if he… wait, he was 36 in 2021. This is 2012. He was a young pup then, huh? SHAWN: Right. Now let’s go over the indictment of Mr. Elliott. The current one. MEG: Oh, the current one. SHAWN: 2016, 2017, 2018… MEG: My word. He is just on… he’s like a huge criminal. SHAWN: 2019. September 16, 2020: Count 4. MEG: Count 4, 2020. SHAWN: So, Meg, answer me this. Did Count 4 occur before or after the Supreme Court suspended his license? MEG: After. SHAWN: Okay. Yep. It’s bank fraud. MEG: Count 4 was bank fraud. SHAWN: And Count 5: before or after the Supreme Court suspended his license? MEG: Count 5 is bank fraud. After. SHAWN: Okay. Count 6: before or after the Supreme Court suspended his license? MEG: Same. After. SHAWN: Right. Now, April 5… MEG: Wait a second. Is that in here at all? In his indictment? SHAWN: No, that’s not even in there. MEG: It’s not in there? They didn’t even look it up to see his license? SHAWN: We’re getting there. MEG: Did you call the attorney general? SHAWN: You’ve got to call the DOJ, Meg. If we’ve established one thing so far, it’s that law enforcement is not going to care unless the masses care. MEG: Yeah. And they don’t really investigate that much, apparently. SHAWN: So look at the date on this. MEG: Yeah. 2021. SHAWN: Okay. Was that before or after he got caught with cocaine? MEG: Oh, cocaine was in what, 2019? SHAWN: When did he get caught with cocaine? MEG: 2021. SHAWN: What month and day? MEG: June 21, 2021. SHAWN: Okay. April 5, 2021. MEG: Now, I’m just… well, June 21: that says the day it was reported. What was the actual date he got charged? SHAWN: Well, I don’t think it says so on there. MEG: Okay. SHAWN: All right. April 5, 2021: Count 8. MEG: Uh-huh. SHAWN: Count 9, August 4. Is that before or after he gets caught with the cocaine? MEG: After he gets caught with cocaine. SHAWN: And he’s still doing bank fraud. More importantly, after he gets caught with the cocaine in Madison County, he’s still a GAL for minors in Madison County. MEG: For three minors, right? SHAWN: Well, I don’t know how many minors. The fraud alleges three minors, but this guy could very well have hundreds. MEG: That’s true. Of minors. He probably does. Are they investigating into those? SHAWN: That’s a good question, Meg. That is a good question. Are you sure you don’t want to go work for the DOJ? MEG: They don’t pay enough. SHAWN: April 23, 2022: Count 11. Before or after? MEG: After. SHAWN: 2022. After his license is suspended, after he’s caught with cocaine by law enforcement in Madison County. Still a GAL. MEG: Oh, controlling the bank accounts of minors. We’ve got to blast this. SHAWN: March 7, 2022. MEG: How many counts did they end up doing? SHAWN: Well, we’re getting there. October 26, 2022. We’re on Count 13 right now. MEG: Yeah. October 26, 2022. So here’s what people don’t understand. When he says “per violation,” they’re putting down every time he violated: the bank fraud. That’s why you’re at Count 13. Then they show the date. So anytime they do it, bam, bam. It can go up to 30 to 50. SHAWN: Correct. So that’s the biter. That’s how you get bit in federal court. You commit this crime over and over and over again, you get charged with 100 counts. That’s what they mean when they say, “I’ll put you under the prison.” It means you’ll die in prison, and you’ll get buried in the prison cemetery. MEG: Because it’s what, 30 years per violation? SHAWN: Yeah. You will die in prison, and you’ll get buried in a prison cemetery. You will never leave prison for the rest of your life, or non-life. You’ll get buried on the prison grounds. So as of right now, we are on Count 13. Take that times 30 years, times 13 counts. All right. Now this one: April 5, 2021, through October 21, 2022. Now, October 21, 2022: how long is that after his cocaine possession? MEG: About a year and a half. ‘Cause June ’21. SHAWN: All right. A year and a few months. And now, here’s an important thing to show. MEG: (reading) “The fraudulent order stated that as a matter of Illinois law and the policy of this court, any and all funds claimed on behalf of a minor shall be held until that minor reaches the age of 21. This was false, and the fraudulent order was created by Elliott to conceal his fraud and delay the release of the settlement funds to T.A.” So he faked an order and mailed it to these minors. Was it mail fraud? Count 14, was it mail fraud? SHAWN: Yeah. Count 14, page 12, paragraph 8. That’s the fraudulent order. Now, what have we been complaining about over and over and over again? MEG: Fraudulent orders. SHAWN: Right. And here you finally have a quote from a Department of Justice United States Attorney claiming that this guardian ad litem created a fraudulent order to pay himself. MEG: So here’s my question on that. He mailed it, or sent it over, to these kids. They think they can’t touch the money until they’re 21, all while he’s taking money from it. SHAWN: Right. MEG: Now, the question is this: did he file that within the system? Did you look it up to see if it was filed in the system? SHAWN: Well, that’s the allegation here, that they even filed it within the courts. I can’t tell, frankly, if this was an order issued by a judge, but it appears that he created a fake order from a judge to withdraw the money. I think it said it on here. MEG: Yeah. And then, October 21: the attorney used fake court orders to do it. SHAWN: Yep. Count 14. All right. So I printed out all the judges for Madison County. MEG: Oh, he mailed it. I knew it, right? Mailed. (reading) “Mailed the minor a fraudulent court order that appeared to have been entered in Madison County Circuit Court.” So it appeared… so he didn’t really put it in. He probably used a fake stamp and all that. SHAWN: I think that’s what the allegation is. So look, we have a suspension by the Illinois bar for misconduct. MEG: Well, let’s start at the beginning, though. SHAWN: Yeah. MEG: So in 2012, when he was young… what was the charge? I think he’s in his 20s or something like that. He gets charged with driving without a license, ‘cause he had a DUI. SHAWN: Uh-huh. MEG: So in 2012, yep, license suspended. Then his next thing was… gosh, he’s just a mess. Oh, then he got his attorney license revoked or suspended, and then he gets pulled over for driving without his license. So he has no license, no attorney license, and now he’s in trouble for still practicing law. Oh, yeah, cocaine. Don’t forget the cocaine in there. Don’t forget the cocaine. And then he’s still practicing law, he’s still driving, and now he’s in trouble for practicing law. And then let’s add in stealing money. SHAWN: And look, this is a 2018 issue. So he apparently had a license suspension in 2018, too. MEG: Oh, wow. So I think there are three driving-without-a-license cases, and he’s representing children. SHAWN: And so that’s the thing I want to point out. As he got worse and worse, and these are allegations, some of which he’s been convicted on: the DUI around 2012, the driving on a suspended license in 2012, the driving on a suspended license somewhere around 2018, the suspension of his law license in 2020, possession of cocaine in 2021, and driving without a license. And in 2022, one of these judges, or more, is letting him be a GAL. And they have access to all this. Here’s what I want you to imagine. I called this Operation Judge Hunter, right? How did this guy become a guardian ad litem? MEG: So this makes me really think, too. Are you guys all looking at your guardian ad litem’s history? I did, with my federal judge, the federal judge I went to federal court with. She had a DUI in this county. SHAWN: Yeah. MEG: And so she knows all the judges. SHAWN: Hey, DUIs happen, and some people recover. But in this particular circumstance, what it looks like is that after he lost his license, he still kept doing it. People can make mistakes. MEG: I get that. But then driving when you’re not supposed to, that’s legitimately “I’m making a choice to go against the law.” SHAWN: Well, it looks plainly like he’s using the bank and the trust funds to fund his cocaine addiction. MEG: That’s what I was about to say next. He ran out of money because his addiction got worse. SHAWN: But this goes to our overarching complaint about family courts: because they’re sealed proceedings, and because there are all these protections in place for children, these criminals come into the system and commit these horrific frauds. MEG: Yeah. And then when the family jumps up and down and says, “This is fraud,” the judges or the court or the GAL retaliates and says, “You’re crazy. You just don’t like me because I’m ruling against you.” SHAWN: And that’s how people who are dirty get into the GAL and family court business: because they can’t do anything else, because there’s scrutiny, and they’re not actually good as attorneys, right? And then that’s how they conceal their crimes: through the protective orders and retaliating against their victims. MEG: Well, and let’s mention, too: these children didn’t have any parents, right? The mother died. And this is only one situation, because let’s say he was doing this to others. He probably was doing this to other children, right? SHAWN: Yeah. Then, let’s say the parents… well, who knows how many kids he’s got, right? But let’s say the parents see, “Wait a second, this is happening,” by looking at the invoices. Guess what happens then? MEG: Oh, you lose your kids, right? Retaliation. SHAWN: You go looking at the GAL bill, and you’re like, “Hey, you didn’t do anything on this case. You did literally nothing of value on this case, and your opinion is pure [bleep],” right? And then they retaliate. MEG: Yep. SHAWN: But remember what I said at the beginning. I said, “Meg, this is Operation Judge Hunter.” This guy might be dirty, but we want him to flip. MEG: Flip? What do you mean? SHAWN: Let me go back to our cast. All right. Remember our task force? MEG: Yep. SHAWN: This is the Chicago police: the veteran, the Treasury agent, the accountant. MEG: If you haven’t seen it, we talk about these in almost every episode. SHAWN: Yeah. We want this guy, this guardian ad litem, to flip. All right, you hold on to that. He’s got this big, fat indictment. MEG: Who’s “he”? SHAWN: Elliott. David K. Elliott’s got this big, fat indictment. David K. Elliott, he’s got so much on his plate. He’s in trouble, right? And he’s a young man. He doesn’t want to die in prison, right? But that’s a lot of years. That’s a lot of bank fraud. That’s a lot of victimized people. But he doesn’t want to die in prison. And so what he does, if he’s smart, and if the agents on the task force are smart, is they say, “Hey, look, we want to do a proffer interview.” Do you know what a proffer interview is? MEG: No. SHAWN: You’ve seen it. You’ve seen it on crime shows. MEG: Oh, okay. SHAWN: That’s where somebody says, “Look, I want to talk to the cops. I’ll give you XYZ criminals if you’ll take a little off this.” And that’s where David K. Elliott… MEG: Oh, please don’t tell me what you’re going to say. SHAWN: …works with the Department of Justice to take down dirty judges. So now Elliott is working with, hypothetically… MEG: Oh, hypothetically. SHAWN: Allegedly, hypothetically, he’s working with the DOJ to take down dirty judges. So in criminal law, you generally want to decide early. You want to decide, all right, am I going to trial? If you’re going to trial, go to trial. Get the case set, get the witnesses subpoenaed, file motions, and go fight the case at trial. But if your client’s got information to sell, and your client wants to go the route of cooperation… some people call it snitching, some people call it ratting, whatever. MEG: So now you’re saying the GAL can snitch and get out of all his convictions? SHAWN: Not get out of… MEG: Oh, just lower them. SHAWN: But potentially they’ll work… you know, sometimes they’ll work with you on sentencing. Sometimes they’ll work with you on the severity of the crimes charged, the number of the crimes charged. MEG: So, “Give me some information, and I’ll make it not be so powerful,” right? SHAWN: And if the information is valuable, the DOJ will work with him. MEG: And that’s kind of what’s going on in Charlie Kirk’s case. [Remark about a third party withheld.] SHAWN: Exactly. And so this task force, through this gentleman right here, could potentially have the in on every piece of dirt in the Madison County family court system from 2012 to present. MEG: And some GALs work not just in one county. Some GALs can hop around. SHAWN: Exactly. MEG: There might be more. SHAWN: Exactly. So one of these judges appointed this man to be the guardian ad litem. One or more of them. MEG: Is that how GALs get in? They get appointed? SHAWN: Yeah. MEG: Okay. SHAWN: One of these judges, one or more, appointed this man to be a guardian ad litem. All right. And that judge right now has got to be nervous. MEG: Yeah. And for the families: is it public knowledge who appoints them? SHAWN: Should be. MEG: I tried to look this up. I was like, it should be, ‘cause I’ve never even seen any GALs, like, any news: “Someone appointed this.” You know, you always hear somebody got appointed by this judge. No, nothing. SHAWN: Yeah. So I want you to consider, like, a sweater. We found a little loose thread on a sweater. We’re going to tug on that thread to try and get deeper into the sweater. So David K. Elliott, he’s in trouble. These are serious allegations. Clearly, there’s a task force investigating. MEG: So now they’re investigating. They haven’t arrested him yet? SHAWN: No, they’ve arrested him. They’ve arrested him. MEG: Did he bail out? SHAWN: Yeah. The indictment has been unsealed. He has been charged. Look at the date on this: August 18, 2026. So there are two avenues he’s got. He’s got, obviously, the cocaine. Whoever he’s buying coke from, you know, that’ll be one avenue he can go from. MEG: Oh, you mean expose the people who are selling him the cocaine? SHAWN: Right. And typically it’s some low-level dealer, and the cops won’t care, because the cops are probably onto whoever it is already. But a judge… if you’ve got an in to a judge, and you’re influencing judges’ opinions, he could roll over on who knows how many cases of families who’ve had their lives destroyed. So if you’re in Southern Illinois right now, and you’ve got this guy as a GAL, or the judges who were appointing this guy as a GAL over your case, you need to take a very serious moment to consider going to the law enforcement agencies who indicted him, with copies of your invoices. MEG: Correct. SHAWN: So they can do an investigation. So, do you like Operation Judge Hunter so far? MEG: Love it. SHAWN: Yeah? You like that? MEG: Makes me want to go look up my GAL. SHAWN: So that’s kind of why people who are like this gravitate to family law: because your victims are kind of under a gag order, right? And nobody’s going to believe them anyway. MEG: Right. And then if you expose them, you can lose your kids. SHAWN: Exactly. MEG: Wow. So I thought that was fun. I think attorneys play into this as well. You know, attorneys play both sides. They use their attorney side to do whatever they want, and then, bam, you can’t expose them, because you’re in trouble if you do. “Oh, now you go to supervised visits.” “Oh, now your rights are taken away.” SHAWN: Yeah. Because they don’t want you exposing what they’re doing. MEG: I wonder how many of our children are blackmailed. SHAWN: I wonder how many of his visits in the Madison County court were virtual court sessions. MEG: Yeah, I agree. I want to see if I recognize any of these judges. SHAWN: And I would also note that almost all of the fraud that occurred, occurred after COVID, when everybody was doing virtual court and remote work. MEG: Yep. Nope, I don’t recognize any of them. I’ll have to look them up on my… but yeah, the court actor registry. I want to see the registry survey, too. SHAWN: If you’re in East St. Louis right now, or you have a relationship… if you’re in St. Louis, and you have a co-parent in East St. Louis, and your case is in Madison County, and you’ve got a lawyer over there, you need to very seriously investigate. MEG: So St. Louis, that county is kind of like our county, where we’re right next to the Missouri border? Just like Kansas City’s got Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri? SHAWN: Yeah. There’s St. Louis, Missouri, and St. Louis, Illinois. MEG: I did not know that. I’ve always wondered if there’s another city like ours. SHAWN: There is. And it’s funny, it’s the same: one of them is immensely better than the other one, just like Kansas City, Missouri, is better than Kansas City, Kansas. MEG: Well, you know why that’s happened. SHAWN: Yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s a whole thing. You don’t want to… that’s too much work. All right, let’s go into some other cases involving fraud-related lawyers. [Break] SHAWN: So the National Fraud Enforcement Division is going after lawyers. And I know that because they say that right here in their press release. MEG: Yay! SHAWN: So read this right here. MEG: Ooh, let’s go. Let’s get ‘em. Let’s do it. Okay, so this is the DOJ, Houston. (reading) “A 44-year-old Houston woman has been charged with mail fraud and false statements in relation to her job as an immigration attorney.” False statements. “The Department of Justice has created the National Fraud Enforcement Division. The core mission of the Fraud Division is to zealously investigate and prosecute those who…” Sorry, I’m going to start this over. “The core mission of the Fraud Division is to zealously investigate and prosecute those who steal or fraudulently misuse taxpayer dollars. Department of Justice efforts to combat fraud support President Trump’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, led by JD Vance, to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse within the federal benefit programs.” Well, can we go up to Title IV-D and IV-E, please? That’s the highest one. You just bill for anything and everything, even if it has no value, and it leads to you billing more money. SHAWN: Exactly. MEG: So that’s really cool. So that is an attorney, the immigration attorney: mail fraud and false statements. SHAWN: So, yeah, they’re going after lawyers right now, and for good reason. Some of these lawyers have used remote work to engage in the worst schemes and artifices to defraud. MEG: Yep. SHAWN: I mean, I’ve seen it in the courts. There have been so many instances between 2020 and now where I thought to myself, is that person committing fraud? Is this court allowing fraud by allowing this person to Zoom into court? MEG: Right. SHAWN: And now the DOJ appears to be filing indictments. Look at the date on this one. That is one day prior to the indictment: September 9, 2026. MEG: So two lawyer indictments within two days, right? SHAWN: Yeah. MEG: So who reported these people? We’re teaching people how to report fraud to the DOJ. Who reported them? SHAWN: So take a look here. It was the victims. MEG: Okay. So this is United States, and this is the indictment against somebody, right? SHAWN: Yeah. And see how it says “sealed” up here? That has been unsealed since then, because the person got arrested. So what they’ll do is file the indictment under seal, so that the person doesn’t know it’s coming. MEG: Is this regarding this? SHAWN: Yeah. MEG: Oh, that’s the indictment. So this is September 2. They indicted him. It’s sealed, and then they announce it, because they got arrested. SHAWN: Yeah. They unseal it after they arrest them. They don’t want a person being warned and taking flight. MEG: So is this the attorney? SHAWN: Yeah. MEG: Okay. The attorney. So this is the indictment from the DOJ. SHAWN: Yeah. MEG: That would be their attorney general, right? SHAWN: Yep. Which would be… who is our attorney general for the United States? MEG: I should know the answer to this. Nothing like getting put on the spot. Oh, Todd Blanche. SHAWN: Todd Blanche. MEG: Okay. SHAWN: So you asked who reported it. A.C. Their initials are right here. MEG: Oh, A.C. and G.C. SHAWN: So these two people, A.C. and G.C., showed that there were false and fraudulent pretenses and representations. So they said, “Hey, help me, DOJ. This attorney is doing all this.” They filed complaints with the FBI against their lawyer. (reading) “…causing A.C. to submit unnecessary documents to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, including vaccination records…” which would be via the Postal Service. That was the fraud, and the tracking number. So these people then reported it to the DOJ, and then they looked into it and found the problems. MEG: Yeah. So what you’re saying is, let’s say two men, or a man and a woman, sent the DOJ their proof, their evidence, to prove they’re doing this. SHAWN: Basically. Okay. It’s not a crime to have a niche argument, you know, an interesting take on the law, something that is unique. It’s not criminal to do that. It’s also not a crime to be wrong, right? MEG: Okay. SHAWN: Or to submit something that you had a good-faith belief was true and then subsequently find out it wasn’t. Those aren’t crimes. It is a crime to engage in a scheme or artifice to defraud, where you know that you are getting rich committing crimes based on complete and total nonsense that you are filing. MEG: Right. And so Shawn’s been teaching us how to do a memorandum. It’s all on our website; you can download it. But here it says these two people, the clients, filed a memorandum that said that the attorney told them they had to request certain information from USCIS, which I guess is immigration, customs or something. But this attorney told these two people that they had to do this, which is not true at all. So it’s kind of like a GAL, let’s just say, telling you or a parent, “You have to go get a psych evaluation because the court told you to.” SHAWN: Maybe. So you’re kind of talking apples and oranges. If a GAL has no relationship whatsoever… let’s pull out our cast of characters. This attorney: they were his clients. They hired him to represent them. MEG: That’s what I’m saying. SHAWN: And then he says, “No, you need to go request this information,” but knowing that no such request had been made. MEG: Yeah. SHAWN: So it was a fraud, right? No request had been made. Now let’s say a GAL said you need to get a psych evaluation, but there was never an order. There was never any question whether there was. It was just a scheme to get the person to pay money to somebody. That would be a scheme, right? So let’s look at our tele-guardian ad litem. MEG: Right. SHAWN: Everybody can empathize with this. This is this fictional person that’s catfishing you in the court. You can never catch them out in real life. You can find them online. They’re always available by Zoom or email or call or text, but you can’t catch them out in the wild. Not in a court, certainly not during a home inspection. And they’re not going to meet any witnesses. MEG: Yeah. If they even do that. SHAWN: Right. So this very well could be… and in many cases, that’s my allegation: that this is a scheme and artifice to defraud, because you’re a lawyer for the child. And if you’re not doing your job to the standard that a normal, ordinary lawyer would do for an adult, then you are committing fraud. And this is not just an attorney. This can be a therapist. This can be a psychiatrist, right? Anybody can pull off remote work fraud. Any profession can pull off remote work fraud. If you’re billing for a service that you were not providing, or it’s so recklessly and negligently provided as to not have been provided at all, that’s the very definition of fraud. There’s no tele-guardian ad litem history. It has existed from 2020 to present, exclusively off of the administrative orders of presiding judges in response to COVID-19. There’s no history for this. They’re making it up as they go. And many of them have gotten quite wealthy, because they can bill $250 an hour with almost no overhead aside from their Airbnb, their laptop, and their Apple AirPods Max, so they can tune out the cafe sounds around them. They’ve got no overhead, so they’re billing pure profit. And because nothing is getting solved, they create a pyramid scheme where the cases keep artificially inflating in value. They get more clients, their clients stay in the system longer, and their clients need more and more services, because the tele-guardian ad litem is not doing their job, and yet billing $250 an hour for their hours spent remote working. That’s the fraud. MEG: Okay. Y’all had better be educating yourselves on this, as well as looking at your invoices and emails, ‘cause I can’t wait to take my file in. SHAWN: Listen, though. I want to point out something to you. Look at A.C. and G.C. No one came to their rescue but them, right? It’s not like they hired an attorney to file this memorandum. MEG: They just said, “Hey, we’re these two people…” We don’t even know. They might not have known each other, right? SHAWN: Yeah. MEG: And they did this, and then all of a sudden… I bet they are just laughing their butts off. They’re like, “We were right.” SHAWN: But let me take you back. This is what families have to gain when they work together against the fraud, right? You want to fight about co-parent stuff, go fight about co-parent stuff. But get together, for your kids, to put together a $1 million wire fraud case for the fraud that you endured in family court. MEG: Yep. SHAWN: Because that’s what these people did, and the DOJ filed it. MEG: Yep. Now, it does look like they’re married. They were married? I mean, ‘cause the last name is C. But it could be two victims of the same GAL, right? SHAWN: So you think that the DOJ won’t file cases against lawyers, that they’re all in it together. But I think I’ve given you proof: the Department of Justice absolutely will file criminal cases against lawyers and judges. And in fact, that’s their specialty. MEG: So that’s what… ‘cause I remember a few people have commented, like, “We’ve reported it, and nothing’s happened.” Can you see if they reported it within their county or state, and then, let’s say nothing happened, they went to the DOJ? SHAWN: Well, yes and no. But let’s move on to how we can see these things. MEG: Okay. Okay. All right. He’s like, “I don’t want to answer your questions.” SHAWN: No, I do want to answer your questions, but I’m going to answer your questions… MEG: Oh, I know. With research. SHAWN: Okay. Because there’s the extent to which you want my opinion, and the extent to which you want my research, right? MEG: Proof. Evidence. SHAWN: Yeah. You like my research. MEG: Well, and that’s why everyone’s always like, “Well, show me the evidence.” I was like, he does it every episode. All you do is, when you tell us anything, you have evidence to support it. You’re not just sitting there fluffing everyone’s feathers and saying, “You can do this.” No, this is actual proof he brings us every week. These are real cases. SHAWN: Look, this has got a file stamp from a court, a signature from a prosecutor, a probable cause affidavit from law enforcement. It’s a pending criminal case. And everybody can build this themselves. If they’d like the physical stuff, you can download all of this documentation and make your own. Okay, so that’s going to bring me to… MEG: Wait, can I see that? SHAWN: I’m going to show you all of it. MEG: Okay. SHAWN: So that brings me to how to file a complaint. MEG: Okay, okay. This is the stuff we want to hear. SHAWN: Do you remember this fine gentleman? He’s facing some serious allegations right now. MEG: (reading) “State of Kansas versus Shawn McMahon. Comes now… duly appointed… district attorney of the 18th Judicial District…” Is that Johnson County, too? 18? We’re 18, right? SHAWN: That’s Wichita. MEG: Oh, no. I’m sorry. I think we’re 10. SHAWN: Yeah. MEG: (reading) “…and for and on behalf of said State gives the court to understand and be informed that… Shawn P. McMahon did unlawfully make, generate, distribute or draw, or cause to be made, generated, distributed or drawn, a written instrument, electronic data, or entry in a book of accounts, to wit: email requesting an LOP…” What’s that, LOP? Limited liability partnership? “…appointment, with knowledge that such information falsely states or represents some material matter.” None of this makes any sense to me. SHAWN: Look at the charge at the bottom. MEG: “Making False Information.” Oh, this is the guy that… is this the guy that did not report the child abuse? SHAWN: So the allegation is that he was a police officer in Wichita, and that a juvenile reported neglect and abuse to him and a DCF worker, and that he then did something within their systems that prevented the investigation from going forward. And the DCF worker was like, “What are we doing?” And he generated something false. And so the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Department conducted a criminal investigation on a Wichita Police Department investigator. I think I have something just like that in my little pocket. Okay, so let’s look at our cast of characters. You hold up our sheriff’s deputy, and I’ll hold up our patrol officer. Did I get that right? No, I did not get that right. All right, hold this one. So, the McMahon case. The allegation is that a police officer took information from a child. This information was substantiated, or information worth substantiation, for abuse and neglect. And a DCF worker heard it, followed up, and was like, “What are we doing?” And the allegation is the officer for the police department filed false information in order to make it go away. The sheriff’s department conducted a criminal investigation into the police department officer to determine if the police department officer committed the felony of making false information. So: cannibalistic. Law enforcement will eat their own. MEG: So you’re saying somebody reported it to them, saying they didn’t do their job, and so they went after him? SHAWN: I’m just hypothesizing here, but I would imagine it was part of the family that was like, “Hey, our child reported abuse and neglect here. What are you doing?” Or DCF… MEG: Yeah. SHAWN: …or DCF, one or two of them, or the Sedgwick County prosecutor’s office. It’s unclear to me. But either way, the sheriff’s department… It also could have been the Wichita Police Department. This person’s partners could have been like, “Hey, something’s wonky here. Let’s get an outside agency involved due to a conflict.” And then the outside agency… So a variety of sources could have resulted in the outside agency investigating this agency. MEG: And then Kansas… the attorney general went after him, right? Which is Kris… SHAWN: Well, it’s the State of Kansas. That’s not the attorney general. Oh, no. That is just the county. The county prosecutors are coming after him. MEG: Right. SHAWN: Okay. Now let’s bring you and your viewers to how to file a law enforcement affidavit that sticks. [Break] MEG: Well, that was the ending of this episode, and I love what we learned today. Do a little rundown, Shawn, of what you taught our viewers today. SHAWN: Oh, so much fun stuff. My favorite part was us doing a deep dive on an indictment that was published two days ago. MEG: Two days. So once again, Shawn doesn’t just tell you what y’all want to hear. He brings evidence and then talks about it. There’s proof. Evidence. So what are we going to be talking about in the next episode? SHAWN: We want to inform your viewers on how to write like a cop. Your viewers right now are just word-vomiting their story: “I’ve done this. I’ve done this. No one listens to me.” Just blah. MEG: “Is this fraud? Is this right?” SHAWN: Right. They’re just “blah, blah, blah.” And you know what? That’s not going to get you where you need to go. MEG: Correct. SHAWN: So we need to teach your viewers how to write like a cop, so that a cop just copies and pastes their information into a probable cause affidavit. MEG: So exciting. I’m so excited. SHAWN: Right. MEG: All right. Well, tune in next time. I’m Meg, with Stand With Meg. And thank you, Shawn, for being here today. Really appreciate you. And what’s your slogan? SHAWN: There’s less crime in criminal law than in family law. MEG: Ooh, your best yet. All right. We’ll see you next time. Stand With Meg.