Link to YT channel addressed in this presentation: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/@KathysIndieZoNe/posts" target="_blank" rel="ugc noopener noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/@KathysIndieZ...</a> 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.

2 Idaho Cases, 2 Different Approaches to Transparency

Lets talk about all things Indie: free speech, true crime, free expression, art, music, books, etc.
All episodes review docket entries in chronological order in 5 minutes or less in various true crime cases. All opinions provided here are the pure and exclusive opinions of the host provided pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (freedoms of speech and the press) for educational purposes.