CJ Brand Attorneys

01/09/2026

LINDSAY CLANCY – VICTIM OR MURDERER?

A Massachusetts jury is deliberating this week on the fate of Lindsay Clancy. Before anyone reaches for a verdict of their own, it's worth being precise about what is actually not in dispute.

On 24 January 2023, Clancy strangled her three children — Cora (aged 05 years), Dawson (aged 03 years) and Callan (08 months old) — with exercise bands in the basement of their home. She did not deny this. She killed Dawson first, then went back upstairs for Cora, brought her down, killed her, went back upstairs for Callan and killed him last. This was explicitly recounted by Clancy during interviews with Dr Gregory Saathoff, a forensic psychiatrist and a member of the FBI Behavioural Analysis Unit, who gave evidence as a prosecution rebuttal witness during the trial.

A separate prosecution rebuttal witness, forensic psychologist Dr Kirk Heilbrun, testified that Clancy told him she said “go to God, baby. Go to God” as she killed each child. This testimony briefly halted the trial after the defence moved for a mistrial over its religious content. The judge denied the motion. Beforehand, Clancy had sent her husband out of the house twice on errands.

Strangulation requires sustained, close physical force, applied and maintained, against a struggling human being — done here three times in succession, to her own children. Under Massachusetts Law, it's the difference between murder in the second degree and murder in the first degree.

Clancy’s mental state is a real and separate question, and postpartum psychosis is a real illness that deserves to be taken seriously — including by the courts. But whatever psychiatric explanation is ultimately accepted by the jury, the evidence of what Clancy physically did cannot simply be erased by describing the event as a blackout or momentary loss of control. Clancy’s actions are consistent with what prosecutors called “sequential decision-making.”

None of that requires resolving the psychiatric question first. Whatever conclusion the jury reaches about her illness, the facts of what she did and how, point one way: this was not a woman who blacked out and came to in the basement. It was a woman who made the same choice three times in a row.

It can never be — let alone for a mother — a justification to kill one's own children, whatever the cause. That should not need saying, but having regard to the support for Clancy, it apparently does.

The public reaction has been its own story — hundreds of supporters, particularly women, outside the courthouse, a wave of sympathetic content on TikTok and other social media platforms.

Much of the support for Clancy is premised on the argument that maternal mental illness gets too readily dismissed until it's too late. That argument deserves a hearing, but can never drown out the screams for justice for Cora, Dawson and Callan.

25/08/2026

SPORT VIOLENCE AND MINORS

Last week I wrote about violence in sport and the parallel accountability system that lets it go uncharged. This week, a case that takes that failure to a level that should disturb every person in this space.

In December 2025, a 16-year-old girl competed in a girls’ high school wrestling tournament in Puyallup, Washington. She was unaware that her opponent was a biological male. During the match, her opponent performed what wrestlers call an “oil check” — an illegal move involving digital pe*******on of an opponent through their clothing. The girl was visibly distressed on video, filmed by her own mother who was watching from the sideline, and allowed herself to be pinned to end the match.

She reported the incident to her coach within days. The school did nothing.

Fifty-five days passed before any report was made to law enforcement or child protection authorities. Under Washington state law, professional school personnel are mandatory reporters, required to notify authorities within 48 hours of receiving a credible report of abuse or assault. The principal and athletic coordinator of Rogers High School have since been charged in Pierce County District Court with failure to comply with that mandatory reporting obligation. The incident only became a criminal matter because it became a national news story.

The Pierce County prosecutor declined to charge the transgender wrestler, citing insufficient evidence. A federal Title IX lawsuit has since been filed against the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association, the Puyallup School District, and other entities, alleging deliberate indifference to a known risk of sexual assault. The US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has opened a formal investigation.

I am not commenting on the broader policy debate around transgender athlete participation. That debate is real, contested, and for another post. However, irrespective of one’s position on that debate, a minor promptly reported a sexual assault during a school-sanctioned sporting event and the institution sat on it for 55 days - that is a failure of the most basic duty of care owed to a child in the institution’s charge.

Mandatory reporting laws exist precisely because institutions (such as schools, churches and sporting codes) have a demonstrated historical tendency to protect themselves first, premised on a calculated reputational risk.

In this case, the calculation appears to have been compounded by the politically sensitive identity of the alleged perpetrator. Whether that sensitivity drove the delay or merely coincided with it, is a matter the courts will determine. What is not in dispute is that 55 days elapsed; that the law required action within 48 hours; and that two officials now face criminal charges as a result.

Sport’s parallel accountability system — its private tribunals, its internal investigations, its culture of moving on — is structurally ill-equipped to handle sexual assault. It was not designed for it. It does not have the investigative tools, the legal authority, or the independence for it.

When a sexual assault is alleged during a sporting event, the criminal law must apply from the first moment. Not after the governing body has decided whether it’s convenient and most definitely not after 55 days.

18/08/2026

The Increase in Violence in Sport

Recently, Marco Bezzecchi struck a marshal twice at the Brno MotoGP circuit while the marshal was trying to recover his motorcycle. Alyssa Thomas drove a closed fist into Caitlin Clark’s throat during a WNBA scramble in June 2026. And on 08 August 2026, Chicago Sky guard DiJonai Carrington chased down Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham on a fast-break layup and swung her left arm across Cunningham’s face and neck, sending her crashing to the court unable to break her fall. All three incidents went viral.

Bezzecchi apologized and received a one-race ban. Thomas received a one-game suspension. Carrington received a Flagrant 2, was ejected, and later took to social media to post “WHITE PRIVILEGE ”. The league’s response: silence and acceptance. But for Bezzecchi, no apology from either Thomas or Carrington.

But the Carrington-Cunningham incident didn’t stop at the foul. It produced something rarer and more troubling: the Fever’s head coach publicly defending the player who assaulted her own athlete.

Fever coach Stephanie White, in her post-game press conference, praised Carrington’s competitive nature, said she didn’t believe Carrington “intentionally went for” Cunningham’s neck, and all but commended the aggressor for playing hard. When the backlash came, White changed course — claiming she hadn’t seen the foul in real time.

Photographs from the game tell a different story. Images circulating widely on social media show White standing in the background with a clear sightline to the incident as it unfolded. Her own player was clotheslined metres away. Stephen A. Smith put it plainly on air: “What do you mean, you didn’t see the play? What, are you not watching? We saw it. You’re coaching the game.” Indiana’s own fans booed White during pre-game introductions at the very next home game. Her response to her critics: “go to hell.”

This matters beyond the drama of one WNBA season.

What we are watching, across multiple sports, is the institutional normalization of violence. The pattern is consistent: the act occurs; the private tribunal steps in; the sanction is disproportionate to what the same conduct would attract anywhere else; and the people in authority — coaches, federation officials, league executives — minimize it, reframe it, or actively defend it. The commercial interest in moving on always outweighs the principled interest in calling it what it is.

Strip away the arena, the broadcast rights, and the league jerseys. A worker is struck twice by a stranger he’s trying to help. An athlete has a fist driven into her throat. Another is clotheslined from behind on a breakaway. In any other setting, this is a criminal assault: a complainant; a docket; potentially a criminal conviction.

The legal position globally is unambiguous: private disciplinary findings do not extinguish criminal liability. Federation sanctions and league suspensions do not substitute for the criminal process — they simply operate alongside it, and almost never trigger it. Not because the law doesn’t apply, but because nobody with standing chooses to invoke it. Not the victim, not the prosecuting authority, and certainly not the sport.

Why not? Low perceived harm. Cultural pressure on athletes to absorb it and move on. And a pervasive commercial interest — shared by broadcasters, sponsors, clubs, and leagues alike — in keeping the story short.

None of that changes the legal character of these acts. And the coach standing in the background with a clear view, who then claims not to have seen it? That is not a legal concept. But it is a leadership one. And it is precisely the kind of institutional cover that allows this pattern to repeat.

Unnecessary violence in sport must be named for what it is. Every time. By everyone in the room who can see it.

10/08/2026

06/08/2026

💔 JUSTICE FOR ROCKY: MNAWF DEMANDS FULL ACCOUNTABILITY & HUMANE ENFORCEMENT REFORMS 💔

The Malaysia National Animal Welfare Foundation (MNAWF) is deeply saddened and outraged by the tragic death of Rocky, a pet dog who died during a local authority operation in Taman Teluk Gedung Indah, Port Klang. Witnessing a family pet subjected to fatal force while the owner begged for mercy is heartbreaking and unconscionable. Cruelty disguised as enforcement cannot be tolerated.

⚖️ INVESTIGATION UNDER ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 2015
MNAWF notes that Selangor DVS and PDRM have opened an investigation under Section 29(1)(e) of Act 772 (punishable by fines between RM20,000–RM100,000 and/or up to 3 years imprisonment). We demand:
🔹 A transparent, independent, and swift investigation.
🔹 Full legal accountability for those responsible.
🔹 Urgent overhaul of stray capturing SOPs across all municipal councils.
🔹 Mandatory humane animal handling training for all enforcement officers.

As Her Royal Highness Tengku Permaisuri Selangor reminded us, compassion towards animals must prevail, and no one is above the law.

We stand with Rocky’s family during this painful time. 🕊️🐾

📢 Stand with us against animal cruelty:

If you witness animal mistreatment or improper municipal catching methods, report it to DVS at awa.dvs.gov.my/support or local authorities immediately.

18/06/2026

Floppy Didn’t Die in the Line of Duty – A Serious Question of Duty of Care

On 13 June 2026, a SAPS K9 named Floppy was released into dense bush outside Mdantsane, Eastern Cape, in pursuit of three armed suspects following a school robbery. His handler reported hearing shouting followed by gunshots. Floppy did not return. His body was recovered two days later — he had been shot dead. The suspects remain at large.

What happened to Floppy may not only be a tactical failure, but raises serious questions about operational judgment and the duty of care owed to working police dogs.

Floppy was under the control of his handler and is protected under South African animal welfare legislation, including the Animals Protection Act (71 of 1962).

If the reported facts are accurate, a serious question arises whether the deployment exposed Floppy to an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of death.

In my view, releasing Floppy into dense bush in pursuit of three armed suspects, without visual contact or immediate support, exposed him to a foreseeable and potentially lethal danger. Whether that conduct was unlawful is for a court to decide, but the question warrants scrutiny. There is a credible argument that the deployment was unreasonable. The suspects were known to be armed and the terrain significantly limited the handler’s ability to monitor, support or protect Floppy once released.

I acknowledge that this is uncomfortable terrain. These are police officers doing a dangerous job. I am not suggesting malicious intent, but the question is one of operational standards, training doctrine and duty of care.

Floppy was alone.

Three armed suspects. Dense bush. No visual. No perimeter. No cover. No realistic prospect of the handler following or intervening. Floppy was released and the handler waited to hear the outcome. If no meaningful support, containment, or intervention capability existed, the deployment raises questions about whether the threshold of safe deployment was met.

Police dogs are not trained to sacrifice themselves pointlessly. They are trained to find, track and subdue — within a framework of mutual protection that requires human beings to be positioned, watching and ready to come for the dog when it matters.

I write this as an attorney whose passion is animal welfare law and I want to be precise about the nature of my criticism. I am questioning a command culture that appears to treat a working police dog as an expendable asset — one that can be released into a three-on-one armed confrontation in total darkness and have that described afterwards as service, heroism or sacrifice.

Floppy’s death should not be treated as a routine operational loss. It warrants an enquiry and appropriate accountability.

16/06/2026

Justice Served — Or Was It Really?

I recently read a deeply moving article published on 02 June 2026 by Maroela Media, written by journalist Janice du Plessis, titled "Geregtigheid vir dragtige ietermago 'bittersoet'".

For those unfamiliar, the pangolin (ietermago in Afrikaans) is one of the world's most trafficked mammals — a shy, extraordinary creature that deserves our protection, not our greed.

The article tells the story of Naledi, a young pregnant pangolin who was poached and, despite the heroic efforts of the team at the Johannesburg Wildlife Veterinary Hospital involving weeks of tears, trauma and round-the-clock care, neither she nor her unborn baby survived. When an animal dies because of human greed, it is a tragedy. When that animal's unborn baby dies with her, it is a devastation. Both acts stand as a repulsive stain on humanity.

The article celebrates, and rightly so in part, that the poacher involved was sentenced to eight years direct imprisonment in the Molopo Regional Court, with his vehicle — valued at approximately R800,000.00 — forfeited to the state. State Prosecutor Advocate Bennie Kalakgosi and the North West Nature Conservation officials are to be commended for their dedication in securing this conviction.

But here is where I have to pause.

Under Section 73(6)(a) of the Correctional Services Act (111 of 1998), prisoners become eligible for parole after serving one half of their sentence. In practice, this means the man responsible for the death of Naledi and her unborn pup could walk free in as little as four years.

Four years for the aggravating death of a pregnant pangolin and her baby.

This is not a criticism of the prosecutors or the conservationists who fought tirelessly for this outcome — they did everything right within a broken system. This is a call to acknowledge what is obvious: South Africa's criminal justice framework, when it comes to wildlife protection, is failing the very animals it is meant to protect.

The Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) regulations (enacted under Section 97 of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004)) and our broader sentencing guidelines are not keeping pace with the scale, the sophistication, or the devastating impact of wildlife crime. Poaching networks are driven by enormous profit. A sentence that results in four years of actual imprisonment is not a deterrent — it is a business risk that traffickers are clearly willing to take.

Naledi deserved better. Her baby deserved better. And South Africa's wildlife deserves a justice system that matches the gravity of what is being lost.

Reforming our environmental laws is no longer a matter of administrative choice, but a profound moral imperative. Parliament must recognize that static legislation cannot combat the evolving, ruthless dynamics of modern wildlife crime.

To the team at the Johannesburg Wildlife Veterinary Hospital and to every person who fights quietly behind the scenes for animals who have no voice — thank you. Your work matters more than the law currently reflects.

01/06/2026

A court ruling in Brazil is changing how pets are viewed under the law.

Brazil’s courts have ruled that dogs and cats are legally recognized as sentient beings, not property. The decision strengthens penalties for mistreatment and cruelty, acknowledging that companion animals can feel pain and suffering.
Legal experts say the shift could influence future animal welfare cases and reflects a broader move toward stronger protections for pets in Brazil.

01/06/2026

Hundreds of beagles are still trapped inside Ridglan Farms, and animal advocates say time is running out.

After years of protests, investigations, and public pressure, around 1,500 dogs have already been transferred to rescue groups. But roughly 500 remain at the facility.

Now lawyers are back in court seeking emergency protection for those dogs. Their concern is simple. The facility reportedly refused to guarantee that the remaining beagles would not be killed before it shuts down.

These are not numbers on a page. These are living, feeling animals. Dogs who have spent their lives behind kennel walls. Dogs who have never known a real home, a warm couch, or the freedom to simply run and play.

Ridglan Farms agreed to surrender its breeding license by July 1, but advocates argue that the dogs left behind still have no meaningful protection until then.

For years, people fought to expose what was happening inside this facility. Many dogs have already gotten a second chance because of that effort. Now attention has turned to the hundreds still waiting.

Every one of them deserves the same chance at life.

What do you think should happen to the remaining beagles?

30/05/2026

When Justice Champions Animals: A Pakistani Court Shows Us What South Africa Needs to Match

On 28 April 2026, Pakistan's Islamabad High Court issued a landmark judgment that fundamentally reframed how law should treat animal welfare in relation to the culling of stray animals. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro's ruling recognized animals as sentient beings with inherent rights to exist in environments suited to their behavioural, social and physiological needs.

Justice Soomro eloquently affirmed that: "Animals are not mere chattels or inanimate objects to be dealt with solely at human convenience; rather, they are living, sentient beings, capable of pain, distress, comfort, and social response. The law, therefore, cannot remain indifferent to their existence."

Yet in South Africa — a nation with progressive constitutional values and organizations like the NSPCA dedicated to animal protection — our judiciary has failed to demonstrate comparable commitment. While Pakistan's courts elevate animal sentience to a cornerstone of jurisprudence, South Africa's courts have been notably lenient when addressing ritual slaughtering practices, often prioritizing religious exemptions over the very standards our animal welfare organizations advocate for.

The disconnect is stark: The NSPCA and its affiliates investigate animal suffering; our judges enable it through judicial inaction. We pride ourselves on constitutional values and have dedicated organizations fighting for animals. Yet we remain indifferent to animal existence in ways a court in Islamabad has now refused to tolerate.

This raises real questions: Why do we have the NSPCA investigating cruelty cases while courts grant broad exemptions? Why hasn't our judiciary developed the kind of principled animal rights jurisprudence that Pakistan has just demonstrated?

And where are our political parties? None of the major political parties in South Africa have made animal welfare a cornerstone issue – they have abandoned this cause entirely to civil society organizations while chasing causes with electoral appeal. That is not governance. That is abdication. And it says everything about the moral standing, the ethical framework and the cultural consciousness of the political movements and their constituents: a society that claims constitutional progressivism while remaining indifferent to the suffering of sentient beings.

Pakistan has set a new global benchmark. It is time South Africa caught up — and our courts must lead the way.