Ian Runkle/Runkle of the Bailey @ YouTube

So, I started playing a game, and then thought Mrs. Runkle might also like it. It's Devil Is In The Details, and basically requires tracking what things change. This painting I ended up calling Runkle for my mnemonics. Mrs. Runkle started playing, immediately called it "Ian".

@GusRoberts_ Probably.

@IanRunkle Is there a Kingsway ion every large Canadian city?

Also, Mrs. Runkle's Girl Guide troop will be selling cookies this weekend. Canadian Tire on Kingsway. She's asked if I can put a shout out. They must sell many cookies to fund activities.

@Armageddon94471 It's tomato juice, spices, and beer.

@IanRunkle Please elaborate bc I’m too lazy to google it

And to go with Taco Tuesday, a michelada. Every time I order one, I forget how it's pronounced.

Date night: We are doing Taco Tuesday at a place that has a lineup onto the street. Will be worth it. Cheap tacos that are delicious.

@watulookinkdat @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker You said he's confirmed it. Indicate where that happened.

@IanRunkle @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker Ian, ask him. He has confirmed that everything she’s posted is true. And comes right from his extraction. Just stop. Nobody has changing his extraction.

I wonder if any "LawTubers" out there, such as @defense_diaries , @BrotherCounsel , @LawyerYouKnow , @TheEmilyDBaker , @IanRunkle et al will be covering any of this information objectively, or even acknowledging it at all? The contents have been authenticated by Kearney himself, repeatedly, as he continues to blame his ex-girlfriend for "stealing" his extraction and giving it to me (she didn't.) The judge in his restraining order hearing made it very clear that Kearney has waived privilege. All of this information has been alleged in the newly-filed defamation claim, and here it is - in black and white. Imagine if communications like this existed between the Alberts and McCabes? They don't, because the DOJ went back years in their phones and the most that was pulled out was the "asian house" and "tell them (the media) the guy never went in the house." These communications are a lot more pointed and revealing. Why the spin, why the slant, why the relative silence? Maybe people shouldn't trust these guys. jumpshare.com/share/augn068T…

@MrsBeasleyO @RipperGameChair @Maggie725496820 @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker I'd want to see the original docs, or something filed in court.

@IanRunkle @RipperGameChair @Maggie725496820 @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker Who do you trust @IanRunkle to report them accurately? I can’t find anyone that isn’t biased. Let me know. Thanks.

@BostonWags @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker And now you're admitting you're a low rent troll.

@IanRunkle @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker You’re also proving I was wrong. You wouldn’t make a very good comedian, your skins too thin.

@BostonWags @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker No, you're fishing for a screen capture you can weaponize against someone. And you're doing it based on a clear lie. It's a sad game. It was your assertion. Back it up or fuck it off.

@IanRunkle @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker I’d say you’re proving my point.

@BostonWags @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker I'm pointing out that you're just making shit up here.

@IanRunkle @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker Ian, it’s not a difficult question. And you’ve exhibited the ability to form an opinion on someone’s credibility in your last tweet. Yes or No?

@BostonWags @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker When have I cited to TB?

@IanRunkle @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker I have actually, not extensively but between what I’ve seen and your tweets, it’s clear you believe TB is credible. Are you stating I’m incorrect, and you don’t find TB to be credible?

@RipperGameChair @Maggie725496820 @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker They'll come out in filings of the civil lawsuit. I just don't trust Masshole to report them accurately.

@IanRunkle @Maggie725496820 @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker You're correct, she's not a reliable source of information. With that being said, there's no dispute that these phone extractions are real. For someone to totally ignore them is sus.

@KYMaverick1 @GlammaSooz Yeah, my take on it is that it is an Interesting Question, which will result in a ton of litigation and fighting. It'll be really interesting to see how the court battle goes.

Dang Ian, I didn’t wasn’t to think that hard today. It will certainly be interesting to see the arguments made. For sake of argument, let me throw out a counter argument. I agree with the observation that the Supreme Judicial Court analyzes the nature of the speech itself, whether it is genuine petitioning on one’s own behalf versus public dissemination, rather than whether the speaker qualifies as a “journalist.” But that very focus is precisely where the difficulty lies for independent voices like Aidan Kearney. Massachusetts has no statutory reporter’s shield law, so the SJC filled the void with its own Rule 1:19. That rule governs electronic access to court proceedings and defines “news media” in deliberately broad, functional terms: “those who are regularly engaged in the reporting and publishing of news or information about matters of public interest.” The language is inclusive by design. It explicitly covers citizen journalists, bloggers, podcasters, and independent operators — anyone who regularly gathers and disseminates news — not just traditional reporters with press passes or newsroom jobs. One might reasonably expect that this functional, inclusive rationale would carry over into defamation or anti-SLAPP cases if the court were ever given the opportunity. To date, it has not. A review of Massachusetts case law shows Rule 1:19 has never been cited, let alone applied, in any reported defamation or anti-SLAPP decision. The rule remains confined to its narrow purpose: courtroom logistics and media registration. That brings us to the most important recent precedent: Bristol Asphalt Co., Inc. v. Rochester Bituminous Products, Inc., 493 Mass. 539 (Feb. 29, 2024). In that decision, the SJC swept away years of procedural complexity that had crept into anti-SLAPP analysis and returned the statute (G.L. c. 231, § 59H) to its original, narrower purpose. The Court was blunt about the reset: the “incredibly powerful procedural protections” of anti-SLAPP are reserved for the narrow category of meritless SLAPP suits based solely on legitimate petitioning activity. Mixed-motive cases,those that blend petitioning with other conduct such as public dissemination, commercial activity, or audience-building, are to be litigated in the ordinary course. And that is exactly where Kearney runs into trouble. The complaint paints his conduct as a classic mixed-motive operation: hundreds of public blog posts and YouTube live streams, administration of a large Facebook group, rallies, merchandise sales, and CashApp solicitations, all aimed at a massive audience rather than direct petitioning of government officials on his own behalf. Under Bristol Asphalt and the controlling framework from Fustolo v. Hollander, this combination makes it significantly harder for him to show that the lawsuit arises solely from protected petitioning activity at the early anti-SLAPP stage. The SJC’s consistent focus on the functional character of the speech not the speaker’s self-description, leaves Kearney squarely in the mixed-motive category that Bristol Asphalt now channels into full litigation. The early motions will test exactly how the Barnstable Superior Court applies this clarified framework. The full complaint is public record, and the legal lines are now sharply drawn.

In Massachusetts, which has no reporter shield law, acting as a journalist provides no additional legal protection in defamation cases. Moreover, operating in a journalistic capacity causes an individual to lose the protections of the state’s anti-SLAPP statute while gaining no enhanced First Amendment safeguards.

@BostonWags @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker It's clear you've never watched my show, and yet you have strong opinions about it. Weird.

@IanRunkle @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker 😂 but he takes everything TB says as gospel. Oh Ian you should have been a comedian not a lawyer!

@EMcvittie71138 @Ryanair That is horrifying.

@Ryanair @IanRunkle Is there an explanation for this?

another reason we don’t fly to North America

@KYMaverick1 @GlammaSooz My read on the case law is that the journalism thing is because they're writing on behalf of a paper, but TB isn't, he's doing it himself.

In Massachusetts, reporters acting in a journalistic capacity are NOT protected by the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. Key case: Fustolo v. Hollander, 455 Mass. 861 (2010). The SJC ruled that objective news reporting does not qualify as “petitioning the government” on the reporter’s own behalf — so they lose the powerful anti-SLAPP dismissal and fee protections in defamation suits. Still good law in 2026.

@watulookinkdat @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker Where did he do that?

@IanRunkle @MafiaMasshole @defense_diaries @BrotherCounsel @LawyerYouKnow @TheEmilyDBaker Aidan has confirmed it’s accurate. Lol.

Zora has learned that when I stop making noises on Mondays, I am done and free for other things. And now she's here trying to convince me it is bed time, and making frustrated noises when I don't join her. Soon, pup.

@Firechyld @michaelpleahy ...I'm Canadian. What?

@IanRunkle @michaelpleahy I thought you were on the Maga Wagon?

BREAKING: As an award winning journalist, it is my view that Kash Patel has a very strong defamation case against The Atlantic and Sarah Fitzpatrick. This morning he filed a $250 million defamation case against them. tennesseestar.com/justice/leahy-…